-fs^/yjj 





O" 1 ^ 







.LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.? 

$ __ ■ I 

| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. | 



ESSAY 



ON THE 



RIGHT OP INFANTS 



OP 



BELIEVING PARENTS 



TO 



BAPTISM. 



BY WILLIAM CONRAD, 
Pastor of the German Reformed Church, Berlin, Pa* 



€t)amuer£burg # $a., 

PRINTED BY M. KIEFFER & CO. 



1851. 



. 



> 1 



AtSGTOfc 






Copy Right secured according to Law. 



PREFACE. 



The Essay here presented, was originally written in 
1835, and subsequently, in 1837, revised and enlarged. 
It was not intended for publication, but was designed 
for the author's own private use. In compliance, however, 
With the solicitation of an estimable friend, who had read 
the manuscript, consent was given for its publication, in 
consecutive numbers of the "Weekly Messenger," of 
the German Reformed Church, in 1842. And now, in 
compliance with repeated solicitations, the author, having 
made some slight alterations, ventures to send it forth, 
in its present form, with the request, that it be carefulty 
read ; and with the hope, that it may, in some measure, 
answer the end for which it is designed, viz : to shew 
that infants of believing parents have a right to baptism, 
and must therefore be baptized. 



W. C. 
Pa, ) 

January 



Berlin, Somerset co. Pa, j 
1, 1851. J 



CONTENTS. 

|5nrt Jfixst. 

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Import of the word Church, - Page 7 

Sect. 1. A Church existed before the time of Christ, 9 

" 2. A Church existed before the time of Abraham, 18 
CHAPTER II. 

Distinguishable forms of the Church, 28 

Sect. 1. The Patriarchal Church, ... 29 

" 2 The Jewish Church. .... 33 

" 3 The Christian Church. 39 



f urt InoL 



Questions relative to the right of in/ants of believing 
parents to baptism. 
Quest. 1. Is the Christian Church the same in essence 

as the Jewish ? - - - . - - 51 
" 2. Does membership belong to the essence or to 

the form of the Church ? - - - - 69 
" 3. Is the covenant under the Christian dispen- 
sation the same as it was under the Paliiarchal 
and Jewish dispensations ? - - - - 73 



" 4. Is membership the same in the Christian 

Church U it was in the Jewish f - - - 80 

" 5. In what maimer are individuals to be admitted 
into the Church? 83 

» c. If circumcision and 

d<» thi - 97 

• i What other argumente beside the foregoing 
be produced te ihen that intents must be lit 
tnitted Into th< I 1iur< h 6y ' • - l"T 

\i:(,imv\i- i. Christ has no .where forbidden it. - 108 
" 2. n i the 

| . Of * i"'l. ..... ] i", 

" ;;. Pan) call - infants of beliei ing pi 1 1 »j 

« 4 1. \ 

oontro ■ tin ir admission inl 

i the Church. ... 120 

" "». I ijj ■ »oul : 

from the » !hureh in Buch p i - 

oj deviations from the M . . 

» 6. I timony shews that infants were 

baptized. 

•» The rejection of infant baptism te of quite a 

modem date. 141 



RIGHT OF LXFAXT5 TO BAPTISM. 

Hi /irst. 

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATi; 



CHAPTER I. 

Import of *d Church. 

The word Ckvrch is of Greek c It is de- 

rived from xvp;: bich means the house of tk* 

Lord, ft term applied to any house dedicated to the 
ip of God, whether a stated building, or a private 
rig, as in and Co!. 4 : 15. In 

process of time the w into lyrioik 

n parts of 
Europe, underwent another contraction. "The E 
contracted their. ■&, the Genu;-. i'm-Ar, 

the Low P. 

it ciri from which by 

hard Saxon eh :he English mads the word 

The _nified the p! 

: and then by a figure h, called ft 

ll for the thing con- 
tained, :: eftjne I 

uage became gc d word was mperaerfed 



8 THE WORD CHTRCH. 

by ixxXytsia, which in its proper acceptation, is the same 
as kyriake in its tropical sense. The word ixxx^gta 
seems to be derived from ixxa>Ju y to call out of ox from, 
and in a general usus loquendi, denotes any kind of con- 
vocation, or assembly, gathered out of a multitude. An 
instance of its use in this sense, is found in Acts 19 : 
32, 41, where the word is rendered " assembly." The 
usual rendering of the word, however, is " Church," 
and in its particular usus loquendi, denotes a religious 
society, congregation, or assembly, called out from among 
other men, and set apart for the worship of God. This 
is the import of the term when employed by the sacred 
writers, and in this sense its leading applications are the 
two following : 

1. It stands in the singular number; for the whole 
collective body of saints or peculiar people of God, re- 
deemed out of every nation, kindred and tongue ; as in 
the following texts: Mat. 16: 18; Gal. 1: 13 5 Eph. 
1 : 22 ; 3 : 10, 21 ; Eph. 5 : 23 ; Col. 1 : 18, 24; Heb. 
12:23. 

2. It stands for a particular religious community in a 
particular place, as in Acts 8 : 1, 3; 11 : 22 ; 14 : 27; 
&c, and is likewise applied, in the plural number, to 
the religious communities of a particular province, or 
provinces, as in Acts 9 : 31 ; 15 : 41 ; Gal. 1 : 22. 

Besides these hading applications, the word has a 
more confined sense; for it is employed to denote a 
number of people either actually assembled, as in Acts 
15 : 22 ; or accustomed to assemble in the same place 
for religious purposes, as in Rom. 16: 5; Col. 4: 15; 
and is applied to them before their organization by the 
election and ordination of rulers or elders, Acts 14: 23. 



SECTION L 

Having thus ascertained that the Greek term eJcldesia, 
{in our version rendered Church,) is derived from two 
words signifying "to call out of" and having found 
that its predominant import, when used by the sacred 
writers, is, " a religious society or congregation called 
out from among other men ;" we proceed to inquire into 
the following question, viz : 

Did an * ekklesia" or Church exist before the 
time of Christ ? 

To bring forward proof to establish this question affir- 
matively, may, to some, appear altogether superfluous, 
as maintaining it negatively, would, in effect be denying 
that " a society of men called out from among others for 
religious purposes/' existed before the time of Christ. 
Such indeed is the position of some, for they deny that 
a Church existed prior to the time of Christ. Whether 
such a denial be the expression of a firm conviction of 
the mind, grounded on a careful and deliberate investi- 
gation of the subject, or whether it be a position which 
its advocates are compelled to take, in order to support 
some favorite theory or dogma of their own, we are un- 
able to say, having never been so fortunate as to learn 
by what proof it is supposed to be established, nor by 
what arguments it is attempted to be defended. It 
certainly cannot, with any degree of propriety, be de- 
fended, much less established, on the ground, that t]ae 

2 



10 THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 

word " Church" is not found in the Old Testament ; for 
this, even if true, avails nothing, inasmuch as words of 
similar import are found therein and applied to the Jews. 
The term " Church" is equivalent to the Greek ixx7.r-na r 
and has the same meaning, which is, " a society of men 
called out from among other men and set apart for the 
worship of God," and hence, if it can be shown that 
such a society existed before the time of Christ, or the 
rise of the Christian Church, it necessarily follows that 
there existed a " Church," in the strict and proper sense 
of the word, whatever term or terms may have been, or 
may still be, applied to it. 

That such a society did exist, none, we should sup- 
pose, who have perused the books of the Old Testament, 
with proper attention, could possibly deny ; for not only 
does the whole history of the Israelites, from their de- 
parture out of Egypt until the time of Christ, prove them 
to be a people " called out from among other nations of 
the world, separated and set apart for the purpose of 
worshiping God," but the same thing is expressly de- 
clared of them. In Deut. 7: 6, it reads, "Thou art an 
holy people unto the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God 
hath chosen thee, to be a special people unto himself, 
above all the people that are upon the face of the earth." 
See also Deut. 14 : 2. Again, in Exodus 19 : 6, it is 
said, " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a 
holy nation." In the first of these quotations we are 
informed that the Lord chose the Israelites, that is, se- 
lected or " called them out" from among all other na- 
tions or people .that were then upon the face of the earth, 
•and in Deut. 10: 12, 13, we learn what was required of 
this people whom the Lord had chosen; "And now 



THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 11 

Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee ? but 
to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and 
to love and serve him with all thy soul, and with all thy 
heart." Again, in Deut. 10 : 20, " Thou shalt fear the 
Lord thy God, Rim shalt thou serve, and to him shalt 
thou cleave/' See also Deut. 6 : 13 ; Deut. 8 : 6. In 
these quotations we have both the "calling out/' and 
the " setting apart for the worship-of God," and here too, 
we have a regular ekklesia, before the time of Christ. 

The "calling out" however of this ekklesia or Church, 
differed from that of the Christian. The latter was 
composed of individuals, called out from among the 
several nations of the world, whereas the former was 
composed of an entire nation or people, called out or 
separated from all other nations, and consecrated to God, 
Deut. 7 : 6, 7. The whole people of Israel, must there- 
fore be considered as composing or forming but one 
ekklesia; for they were confined to one country, had but 
one altar, and but one fixed place for the performance of 
their sacrifices, and other ceremonies depending upon 
them, Deut. 12: 5 — 11; 1 Kings 9: 3, and they are 
accordingly designated as, "the congregation of Israel," 
Exod. 12: 3; 16: 1; Josh. 8:35; lKings8:5;2 
Chron. 20 : 14. " The congregation of the Lord," Ps. 
74: 2; "The assembly of the saints," Ps. 89: 7; "The 
chosen of the Lord," Ps. 105: 43; And the "nation" 
and " inheritance" of the Lord, Ps. 106 : 5. 

The language of the New Testament is in accordance 
with that of the Old on this subject; for it speaks ex- 
pressly of a "Church in the wilderness," in Acts 7 : 38, 
where Stephen says, " This (viz. Moses) is he who was 
in the Church in the wilderness with the angel which 



12 THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 

spake to him in Mount Sinai, and with the fathers, who 
received the lively oracles to give unto us/' In the 
original the word answering to "Church/' is ekldesia 
from ix, out of, and xa?iu, to call, and by a careful 
examination of the passage we learn, 

1. That the word is not only applied to the Israelites 
when assembled at Mount Sinai, but also when journey- 
ing in the wilderness ; for it is not said that the angel 
spake to Moses in Mount Sinai in the wilderness,, but 
that "Moses was in the Church in the wilderness, with 
the angel that spake to him in Mount Sinai,'' that is, 
icith him in the Church, subsequently to his speaking 
with him in Mount Sinai. 

2. We learn, that the word does not mean an unlawful 
assembly; for, in the first place, the Israelites were 
brought out from Egypt by the command of God, Ex. 
3 : 10 ; Acts 7 : 35. Secondly, they assembled at Mount 
Sinai in obedience to that command, Ex. 19 : 10 ; and 
Tliirdly, their forty years' journey in the wilderness was 
also by the command of God, Num. 14 : 33, 34. Hence 
the word cannot mean an unlawful assembly or mixed 
crowd. It is therefore evident, 

3. That it means a society of persons " called out from 
the world, for the purpose of worshipping God." For 
First, this is expressly declared elsewhere, see Deut. 7 : 
6, 7, compared with Deut, 10 : 12, 13, 20. Secondly, 
the angel that spake to Moses in Mount Sinai, is said to 
be with him in the Church in the wilderness, Acts 7 : 
38; consequently with them during their continuance 
therein, which was forty years. Thirdly, Moses, through 
the angel, received the lively oracles, or the word of God, 
which was to teach " the fathers" the proper worship of 



THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST; 13 

God, and all other duties. Now as the word "Church'' 
signifies a number of persons associated together, for the 
purpose of worshipping God, having ordinances of Divine 
appointment (as the medium of acceptable worship) and 
means of grace, there was a regular Church of God 
among the Israelites in the wilderness. 

That there existed such a Church among them, after 
their settling in Palestine, is evident from the parable of 
our Saviour in Matt. 21 : 33—44, where he speaks of "a 
certain householder who planted a vineyard, hedged it 
round about, digged a winepress in it, built a tower, and 
let it out unto husbandmen, and went into a far country : 
and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his 
servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the 
fruits of it," &c. 

That the vineyard, in this parable, is a figurative rep- 
resentation of the "kingdom of God," spoken of in verse 
43, appears from this, that the same charge is made^ and 
the same course pursued, in both cases. For First, the 
fruits of the vineyard were not rendered in their seasons, 
neither were the fruits of the kingdom of God brought 
forth. Secondly, the "vineyard" was to be taken from 
the husbandmen, and the "kingdom" from the chief 
priests and elders of the people, to whom the parable 
was spoken, verse 23. Thirdly, the "vineyard'* was to 
be given to other husbandmen, who would render unto 
the Lord thereof the fruits in their season, and the 
"kingdom" was to be given unto a nation which would 
bring forth its fruits. These particulars imply a course 
of conduct on the part of those in possession of the king- 
dom, similar to that of the husbandmen in the vineyard. 
And as the kingdom is spoken of as being in possession 



14 THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 

of the chief priests and elders of the Jewish nation, 
(verse 43; comp. 23,) the conduct of the husbandmen is 
therefore a representation of what had been, and would 
be, the conduct of the chief priests and elders in the 
kingdom of God; for ], Jesus spake to them verse 23. 
2, He spake of them, verse 45. 3, He says the king- 
dom shall be taken from them, verse 43. 4, The reason 
assigned is their not bringing forth the fruit thereof. 

We must now ascertain the meaning of the phrase 
"kingdom of God;" for it has several significations. It 
denotes 

1. The kingdom of power, which includes the whole 
creation as its subjects, and over which God's power 
extends, as in Ps. 103 : 19, " Thy kingdom ruleth over 
all." 

2. It denotes the kingdom of grace, which includes 
the professing worshippers of God as its subjects, and over 
whom his grace and mercy extend. In this sense it is 
synonymous with the phrase " kingdom of heaven." See 
Mark 1 : 15. Comp. Matt. 3:2,4: 17. 

3. It denotes the kingdom of glory, or the state of 
happiness to which the righteous attain after death, and 
includes all glorified believers as its subjects. Matt. 13 : 
43 j 25 : 34^ Mark 9 : 47. John 3 : 3, ft. 1 Cor. 6 : 
9, 10 ; 15 : 50. 

That the phrase in the passage under consideration, 
(Matt. 21 : 43,) does not mean the first mentioned king- 
dom is evident; for that was never in possession of the 
Jews, and consequently could never be taken from them. 
That it does not mean the last mentioned, is equally evi- 
dent; for the transactions, which took place in the vine- 
yard representing the kingdom, arc wholly and altogether 



THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 15 

inapplicable to the kingdom of glory, and moreover, 
those who are once admitted as subjects, shall never be 
ejected, nor shall the kingdom ever be taken from them. 
The meaning of the term must therefore necessarily be 
limited or confined to the kingdom of grace, the dispen- 
sation of mercy, and manifestation of eternal truth, pro- 
ducing the true knowledge of God, accompanied with 
that worship which is pure and holy, worthy of that God 
who is its institutor and its object, and to which the 
Jews had been first called and chosen by God, to be " a 
special people unto himself, above all people on the face 
of the earth," Deut. 14: 2, "to be a kingdom of 
priests, and a holy uation," Ex. 19 : 6, and who required 
of them, " that they fear Him, walk in all his ways, love 
him, and serve him with all their souls, and with all 
their heart," Deut, 10: 12, 13. 

This kingdom of grace, (which is preparatory to the 
kingdom of glory,) our Saviour says, "shall be taken 
from" the chief priests and elders of the people, to whom 
the parable was spoken, (Matt. 21 : 23, 45,) and "given 
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." What 
nation that was, we learn from Acts 13 : 46, where Paul 
says to the Jews, " Seeing ye put the word of God from 
you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, 
lo ! we turn to the Gentiles;" see also Matt. 8 : 11. The 
Gentiles were "the nation" to whom the kingdom 
was given, or who were admitted into it after the rejec- 
tion of the Jews ; and as the kingdom, after the admis- 
sion of the Gentiles, constituted the Church of God 
among the Gentiles, then must it previously have been 
the Church of God among the Jews ; for from the latter 
it was taken, and given to the former. 



16 TIIE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 

The same doctrine, viz : " the existence of a Church 
before the time of Christ," is also taught by St. Paul in 
Rom. 11: 17-24, where he speaks of "a good olive 
tree" some of whose branches were broken off, and others 
of "a wild olive tree" grafted in. It is a figure, taken 
from the custom of grafting branches or scions of wild 
olive trees, which bare no fruit, into the stock of barren 
olive trees in a state of cultivation, in order to produce 
fruitfulness. That "the good olive tree" represents the 
Jews, and "the wild" one the Gentiles, needs no farther 
proof than a careful perusal of the passage, which will 
convince every one of the fact. 

The good olive tree must then represent the Jews 
either as a nation, or else as a Church. If as a notion, 
it unavoidably follows, that faith was necessary to citi- 
zenship among the Jews; that the Gentiles by faith 
became citizens of Palestine ; that by faith they became 
incorporated into, and entitled to, all their national privi- 
leges : — consequences which are altogether inadmissible^ 
and highly absurd, and which at once overthrow the po- 
sition, that the good olive tree represents the Jews as a 
nation. It must then represent them as a Church, into 
which the Gentiles, as "wild olive branches/' were in- 
grafted, or admitted by faith, and by which they became 
members thereof, and entitled to all its blessings and 
privileges. In support of this, see Gen. 12: 3; Matt. 
8: 11, 12; Acts 13: 46; Gal. 3 : 7, 9, 13, 14. The 
passage therefore unquestionably proves, 

1. That a Church existed be/ore the time of Christ ; 
for if there was no Church before his time there could 
be none after it; as the Gentiles, or ingrafted branches, 
are represented as only taking the place occupied by the 



THE CHURCH BEFORE CHRIST. 17 

natural branches before their breaking off, and as being 
grafted in among the rest that remained, and partaking 
with them of the root and fatness of the olive; verse 17. 

2. It proves too, that that Church was among the 
Jews ; for they are represented by the good olive tree, 
and the Gentiles by the wild one. 

Thus, from what has been said, we think it evident, 
that the position for which we have contended, (viz. the 
existence of a Church before the time of Christ,) is firmly 
established. For besides the testimony of the Old Tes- 
tament, we find in the Xew, that Stephen speaks of "a 
Church in the wilderness," Acts 7:38; and that Jesus 
speaks of "a kingdom of God," (which term as we have 
seen denotes the Church,) from its first settling in Pales- 
tine, until his death, and the subsequent destruction of 
Jerusalem, when "the kingdom" was to be taken from 
the Jews, and given to a nation who would " bring forth 
the fruits thereof." As the time from Moses, "who was 
in the Church in the wilderness," to Christ, the founder 
of the Christian Church, embraces a period of about 
fifteen hundred years, we here have scripture testimony 
to prove the existence of a Church during all that period, 
that is, back to the time of Moses. And in the passage 
last considered, (viz . Rom. 11 : 17-24,) Paul carries it 
farther back ; for he speaks of the root of the olive tree, 
representing the Jewish Church, as being " holy" that 
is, consecrated and set apart for the service or worship 
of God ; fofcsuch, unquestionably, is the meaning of the 
word in this place, and by this root he means Abraham 
who was "called out" and "separated from" his kindred, 
Gen. 12:1; Josh. 24 : 2, 3 ; from whom the Jews de- 
scended; and in whom "all the families of the earth 



18 THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 

were to be blessed/' Gen. 12:3; Gal. 3 : 8. This car- 
ries us back to about two thousand years before Christ, 
and affords evidence of the existence of "a society called 
out from the world, and set apart for the service or wor- 
ship of God/' however small its number, or in other 
words of a " Church" (however small the number may 
be of its members) from that period down to the rejection 
of the Jews from, and the admission of the Gentiles into, 
the "kingdom," or the founding of the Christian Church. 



SECTION II. 

Having thus shown from the Scriptures, that a Church 
existed before the time of Christ, and traced its exist- 
ence as far back as the time of Abraham, the question 
now arises, 

Did a Church or religious society exist before 
the time of Abraham ? 

It might indeed, and very justly too. we think, be 
inferred from the nature of the case, that God would, in 
all ages, have at least some who worship him ; for we 
are informed that in the most degenerate times of Israel, 
when the prophet Elijah complained and said, that he 
alone was left, and his life sought after by the idolatrous 
multitude, that the answer of God to him was, "I have 
reserved to myself seven thousand who have-not bowed 
the knee to Baal," 1 Kings 19 : 10—18. 

In reasoning then from the nature of the case, to shew 
the probability of the existence of a Church before the 
time of Abraham, we take as granted what, we presume. 



THE CHURCH EEFORE ABRAHAM. 19 

every one -will be ready to admit, viz : that when God 
created man, he created him a free moral agent, and de- 
signed him as a subject of moral government. But in 
order that he might act in this capacity, it was necessary 
that he have a knowledge of his Creator; of the relation 
he sustained towards him; of the rule or law by which 
the quality of his moral actions were to be determined ; 
and also of the consequences of his disobedience or trans- 
gression. As a knowledge of these things was indispen- 
sably necessary to his happiness as a free moral agent, 
and as human reason was too weak, too limited, and too 
uncertain to discover by a process of induction, these im- 
portant moral truths, we cannot reasonably suppose, that 
G-od would leave man to himself, with no other guide 
than his own frail and erring reason, to discover the will 
of his Maker, on the performance of which all his happi- 
ness depended. A revelation of these things being there- 
fore necessary, we might reasonably expect that it would 
be given; and if so, it must come by direct communi- 
cation in language from God, that man's knowledge on 
these subjects might be adequate, complete, of common 
apprehension, sufficiently authoritative, and adapted to 
his circumstances. 

Adam being thus put in possession of this knowledge, 
and fully comprehending the rule which was to deter- 
mine the quality of his moral actions, and the conse- 
quence of his disobedience, would render himself liable 
to incur the penalty as soon as he transgressed, and if 
after such transgression, there remained a possibility of 
his regaining the favor and friendship of God, we may 
justly infer, from the goodness and mercy of God, that 
a farther revelation of his will would be made, pointing 



20 THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 

out, at least obscurely, the way in which reconciliation 
might be effected in order to preserve him from sinking 
into despair. But notwithstanding this favorable dispo- 
sition towards Adam, the infliction of some signal pun- 
ishment would still be necessary, that he might be 
convinced that sin would not go unpunished, and that 
the recollection of what he once suffered on account of 
it, might induce him to guard against it in future. It 
cannot therefore be reasonably supposed that Adam, 
when he had transgressed, and experienced immediately 
in his own person, and in such a signal manner too, 
some of the evil consequences of disobedience towards 
God, would be likely to forget, that misery is the certain 
consequence of the commission of those things which are 
not acceptable in the sight of God, and that such things 
are consequently not to be done. Nor can it reasonably 
be supposed that he would fail to instruct his offspring, 
in the knowledge of those things which he knew to be 
pleasing and acceptable to (rod, and of such as were dis- 
pleasing to him, so far as he was acquainted with them 
—such instructions, such warnings, coming as they 
w ould, from a father, from one who was known to speak 
from experience, and who, no doubt, shed tears of bitter- 
ness, at the recollection of the happiness he once enjoyed, 
and the misery he then endured on account of his diso- 
bedience; could not fail of making deep impressions on 
the minds of, at least, some of his offspring, and of indu- 
cing them, so far as their knowledge extended, to per- 
form those things which were pleasing, and avoid such 
as were displeasing to God, and productive of misery to 
themselves. 

Then, as the increase of the human family, in its cor- 



THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 21 

rupt state, would bring with it an increase of wickedness, 
such as were averse thereto would have less intercourse, 
less communion with the ungodly, and more with those 
who held the same views, had the same feelings, and 
were engaged in the same pursuit with themselves. The 
belief also, that God is the righteous Governor of the 
world, who will punish sin, in which they would be in- 
structed by Adam, who received this doctrine from God ; 
had experienced the truth of it in his own person ; who 
lived among them for centuries* and who might be re- 
garded as a " living monument," to attest its truth, joined 
with his influence as head and father of all, would lead 
them to seek God's favor, or appease his wrath, by the 
performance of such things as they supposed would meet 
his approbation. Hence they would naturally associate 
together for the performance of such rites as conscience 
dictated, or God commanded, in order to render Him 
propitious to them. Such an assembly, thus convened 
and distinguished from other men, by believing and 
obeying the commands of God, as far as made known to 
them, would be a "Church," an "ekklesia," in the New 
Testament sense ; for there the word is invariably appli- 
ed to persons, and not to places ; is not limited to num- 
bers, but is employed to denote any number of people, 
either actually assembled, as in Acts 15 : 22, or accus~ 
tomed to assemble in the same place for religious pm> 
poses, as in Rom. 16: 5; Col. 4: 15, and is moreover 
applied to them before their organization by the election 
and ordination of rulers and elders, as in Acts 14 : 23. 
Let us now inquire whether the language of Scripture 
coincides with the preceding inferences, drawn from the 
nature of the case, in support of the proposition that a 
Church existed before the time of Abraham. 



22 THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 

It is readily admitted, that Scripture testimony is not 
so full and complete on this subject, as it is on the exist- 
ence of a Church after the time of Abraham; nor can 
we reasonably expect that it should be, when we reflect 
that the first twelve chapters of Genesis embrace a period 
of more than two thousand years, a period of greater 
length than is embraced by the remaining chapters, and 
all the books of the Old Testament together. Brief 
however as the history is, it contains some very strong 
and clear intimations af the existence of a Church or 
religious society before the time of Abraham. 

In reasoning from the nature of the case, to shew the 
probability of its existence, we took as granted, that 
"(rod created man a free moral agent," and shewed that 
a knowledge of his Creator; of his relation towards Him ; 
of the rule which was to determine the quality of his 
moral actions; and also of the consequences of his diso- 
bedience or transgression, was thereby rendered necessary, 
and that these things were to be subjects of revelation, 
made by direct communication in language from God. 
These positions are confirmed by scripture testimony. 
See Gen. 1 : 28—30 ; Gen. 2 : 16, 17 ; Gen. 3 : 9—19. 
But to enter into particulars, we find 

1. That Adam had a knowledge of his Creator. This 
appears from Gen. 1 : 28, 29, where dominion over the 
creatures of the earth, and permission to use every herb 
bearing seed, for food, are given to Adam. The expres- 
sions, in both instances imply that Adam had a certain 
knowledge of the giver, and knew who it was that thus 
addressed him, " Behold /have given," viz. the Creator, 
who consequently possessed the right of granting them. 
And this knowledge of , his Creator must have been pre- 



THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 23 

viously acquired by direct communication in language 
from God himself. For if these be the first communi- 
cations, it would have been highly necessary to announce 
to Adam who the being is, that addressed him, — "Be- 
hold / have given," — 'the same as it was announced to 
Moses, who it was that addressed him from the midst of 
the burning bush, Ex. 3 : 4 — 6. We find, 

2. That he had a knowledge of the relation he sustain- 
ed towards God, The knowledge that God was his Cre- 
ator, would lead to the idea of dependence upon him, and 
this idea would receive confirmation, not only from the 
ample provision made for his wants, but also from the 
right and privilege, with which he was invested, of using 
for food, " every herb bearing seed that was upon the 
face of the earth," Gen. 1 : 29. And from the interdic- 
tion, that he should "not eat of the tree of knowledge 
of good and evil," he might learn that it was his duty 
to obey God* and that it Lry in his power to obey or 
disobey the command ; or in other words, he might learn, 
that he was a moral agent, capable of performing moral 
actions, that is, voluntary actions having respect to some 
rule which determined them to be good or evil; and from 
the annexed penalty: "in the day that thou eatest 
thereof, thou shalt surely die," he would learn that he 
is amenable for his conduct to Him who gave the rule. 
We find too, 

3. That Adam had a full knowledge of the ride 
which was to determine the quality of his moral actions. 
That rule was, " Thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowl- 
edge of good and evil," (Gen. 2 : 17,) to which was an- 
nexed the penalty of death, in case of disobedience. 
From this he would learn the evil consequences of diso- 



24 THE CHURCH BErORE ABRAHAM. 

beying the commands of God. — All these things he re- 
ceived by direct communication in language from God. 
We also find, 

4. That he instructed his offspring : And that his in- 
structions made an impression on the minds of some, and 
led them to seek God's favor, by the performance of 
such things as conscience dictated or God commanded, 
may, we think, be inferred from Gen. 4 : 4, compared 
with Heb. 11 : 4. In the first passage it is said, that 
"Cain and Abel offered sacrifices," and in the last, that 
"Abel by faith offered unto God a more excellent sacri- 
fice than Gain." The sacrifice of Abel was a bloody one, 
and must therefore have been of divine institution ; for it 
cannot be supposed or conceived that men would fall upon 
the idea of pleasing God by slaughtering animals, and 
that too, at a time when they were not used for food. If 
it was of divine institution or appointment, it was de- 
signed to symbolize the promise of a deliverance from 
sin; the same as the bloody sacrifices in the Jewish 
Church, and this promise was undoubtedly first given to 
Adam after his fall, when such a deliverance by vicarious 
suffering became necessary; for we cannot think that 
God would pass by the head of the race to be redeemed 
by vicarious agency, and give the promise of deliverance 
to his offspring, unless he had previously decreed or de- 
termined to exclude that head for ever from his mercy, 
— <& proposition which we are neither warranted to assert, 
nor authorized to believe. Adam then having received 
the promise, communicated it to his immediate offspring, 
and it was with reference to this promise, that "Abel 
offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain," and his 
faith in it that made him acceptable to GocL We find 
too. 



THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 25 

5. That his offspring, when iliey had increased, DID 
assemble together for religious purposes. This we learn 
from Gen. 4 : 26, where it is said, " And to Seth also 
was a son born, and he called his name Enos. Then 
(viz. at that time) began men to call upon the name of 
the Lord," This clause certainly cannot mean that men 
then began to call upon the name of the Lord, that is, 
to worship him, in an individual capacity; for of such 
worship we have notice in Gen. 3 : 4, where it is said, 
that both "Cain and Abel brought offerings unto the 
Lord." It must therefore mean that men then began in 
a collective capacity to call upon the name of the Lord, 
-or in other words, to worship him in a public assembly. 
We also find, 

6. That there was a distinction made between these 
and other men, and that terms ivere employed, to desig- 
nate that distinction. In Gen. 6:2, we read of the 
t'sons of God," who took unto themselves wives, from 
among the " daughters of men." That the phrase, " sons 
of God," here denotes the worshippers of God, and not 
angels, as some suppose, is evident; for 1. Christ says 
that angels in Heaven neither marry nor are given in 
marriage, Mat. 22 : 30; Mark 12 : 25. 2. The phrase 
"sons of God" is never applied to fallen angels, whom 
some suppose to be intended here, and who, they say, 
were the fathers of the giants, Gen. 6 : 4. 3. The term 
or phrase is always in the New Testament applied to the 
worshippers of God, John 1 : 12 ; 1 John 3 : J, 2 ; and 
in the Old is frequently applied to the Israelites, Ex. 4 : 
22, 23 ; Dent, 14 : 1 ; * Jer. 31 s 9, And in addition to 
the foregoing particulars we find, 

7. Lastly, That there is mention of Enoch "'who 

3 



26 THE CHURCH BEFORE AERAHAM. 

walked with God," Gen. 5: 22; of Noah, "who was a 
jmt man, perfect in his generation, and who walked with 
God/' Gen. 6: 9, who was also h preacher of right* 
ness," 2 Pet. 2: 5, and of Mekhisedec who was "a 
priest of the most high God," Gen. 14 : 18. 

Thus, all the information that can he derhed from 
Scripture, relative to the subject, is evidently in favor of 
the existence of a Church, or society of worshippers of 
God, before the time of Abraham, and extends it back 
to Adam. Its existence cannot therefore, upon any 
reasonable grounds, be denied. 

One objection, (and so far as we can see but one,) 
may indeed be made, viz: this, "If a 'Church,' or 
society of men called out from the world, existed, whv 
did God call Abraham, and separate him from his 
country, his kindred, and his father's house V Gen. 12 : 
1. To this we reply, 

1. The calling and separation of Abraham from his 
country, kindred, and father's house, no more disprove 
the existence of a Church before his time, than the call- 
ing and separation of men from the world, disprove the 
existence of a Church before the time of Christ : which 
they certainly do not. 

2. Abraham was not then called out to be set apart 
for the worship of God; for it appears from the manner 
in which the call is given, that he was already a worshipper 
of God. 

3. Nor was he called out because there were no other 
worshippers beside himself; for we read of Melehisedec, 
u tik& priest of the most high God,'* Gen. 14: 18, and of 
Abimelech, who was also a worshipper of God, Gen. 20 : 
2 — 6. Both these individuals were eoumporary with 
Abraham. 



THE CHURCH BEFORE ABRAHAM. 27 

The reasons for his calling, which was a peculiar one, 
seem to be these, 

1. The time had arrived in which God was pleased to 
make a fuller and clearer revelation of the promise which 
was given soon after the fall, viz. a deliverance from sin. 
For, that a promise to that effect was given, at so early 
a period, is evident from this, that "Abel offered by 
faith a sacrifice unto God," Heb. 11 : 4, which implies 
a promise of something future ; for "faith is the sub- 
stance or ground of things hoped for" Heb. 11: 1. 
That this promise must have been the promise of a de- 
liverance from sin by vicarious suffering, is evident from 
this, that the sacrifice was a Mooch/ one. As the offering 
of the same kind of bloody sacrifices continued from the 
the time of Abel down to the time of Christ, they must 
have had the same signification at the beginning, as they 
had at the end, or under the Mosaic Law, and we are 
informed that that law had the "shadow of good things 
to come/' Heb. 10: 1, of which "the body is Christ/' 
Col. 2 : 17. 

2. God selected Abraham, a descendant from Shem 
of the tenth generation, to be the repository of that 
promise, as his ancestors had, during a long period of 
time, sustained a character for moral integrity and re- 
ligion, Gen. 5: 1-32; Gen. 11: 10-32; and because 
God "knew him that he would command his children, 
and his household after him, that they keep the way of 
the Lord, to do justice and judgment," Gen. 18 : 19, 

3. He was separated from his country, kindred, and 
father's house, that he might not be seduced and led into 
idolatry, by the example of those around him j for even 
Tcrah his father "served other gods," Josh. 24: 2. 



28 THE CHURCH BLFORE ABRAHAM. 

And accordingly he was directed to go to another country, 
where the danger of his falling into idolatry would be 
less, than when surrounded by an idolatrous kindred, 
and as a motive to obedience, God promised him his pro- 
tection, an ample progeny, possession of the land of 
Canaan, and that "ail nations" should, at last, be I 
through his seed, Gen. 12 : 2, 8; 18 j 18 : 22 : 18. 



CHAPTER SECOND. 

DISTINGUISHABLE FORMS OF THE CHURCH. 

Having in the preceding chapter established the exist. 
enee of a "Church" before the time of Christ and traced 
its existence back to the time of Adam, our next in- 
quiry is, 

How is the Church distinguished ? 

The whole collective body of the professing worship- 
pers of God, in every age of the world, from Adam down 
to the present day, as denoted by the word Church, in 
the singular number, is distinguishable into the Patri- 
archal, the Jewish, and the Christian Churches. 

In all its forms, the Church was based upon the prom- 
ise of a Saviour, which, however, was not revealed 
with equal clearness, in the different periods; and its 
institutions, in the several ages, were adapted to the 
character of those periods, and the degree of clearness in 
which the promise was revealed. 



SECTION I 



THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH. 



*The first form of the Church is denominated the Pa- 
triarchal, because it was during that age or period} 
confined to the families of the faithful, and because its 
priesthood belonged to the head of the family, who was 
succeeded by his eldest son. This form commenced with 
Adam, and subsisted to Moses, being based, as already 
stated, on the promise of a Saviour. The institutions of 
the Church, during this period, were as follows : 

1. Sacrifices. These Were of two kinds, the bloody 
and the unbloody. The latter were designed as expres- 
sions of the grateful feelings of the heart towards (rod, 
and the former were symbolical of faith in the promise 
of their deliverance from sin. Both kinds existed as 
early as the time of Cain and Abel, G-en. 4 : 3, 4, and 
seem to be of divine institution, particularly the bloody 
sacrifices ; for, as already remarked, it cannot be con-^ 
ceived, that men in the very infancy of their race) would 
fall upon the idea of pleasing God by slaughtering ani- 
mals, at a time when they were not used for food. If 
they were of divine appointment, they were designed to 
symbolize the promise of a deliverance from sin, and 
hence, Abel, who offered with reference to that promise) 
is said to have brought "a more excellent sacrifice than 
Cain," Heb. 11 : 4. 

The only sacrifices mentioned during this period, or 
previously to the time of Moses, are the whole burnt 
offering, Gen. 8 : 20; 22 : 1---13 ; Job lib; the thank 



30 TIIK PATRIARCHAL CHURCH. 

offering, Gen. 4: 8, and thetacrifice by which coveiutnti 
were confirmed, Gen. 15: 8, 9, 17, 18, and very little 
is said in respect to the ceremonies which attended these. 
Nor does it clearly appear that there were any purifica- 
tions connected with them, but it is highly probable 
there were. See Gren. 35 : 2. 

2. Sacraments. We meet with no sacraments till 
the time of Abraham, who received the rite of circum- 
cision, Gen. 17 : 10 — 14. There was therefore no exter- 
nal sign to distinguish the people of God from those of 
the world, and in this respect it may be said, that before 
the time of Abraham there was no visible Church, that 
is, none distinguished by any visible sign; for though 
the sacrifices, &c, were external things, yet they were 
common to the worshippers of idols as well as to the 
worshippers of the true God, and consequently formed 
no distinction. On this account, some date the origin of 
the Church with Abraham, who was "called out" and 
separated unto God together with his seed, and distin- 
guished by the rite of circumcision. But we have al- 
ready shewn, that that was not to separate him from the 
world, and set him apart for the worship of God, at the 
time the call was given ; for he had before been thus 
separated and set apart. And moreover, if we date the 
origin of the " Church" with him, we thereby make him 
the first worshipper of God, which is by no means true ; 
see Gen. 4:4; 5:22; 6:9; 14:18. Again, if we 
date the origin of the Church with him on the ground 
that he was distinguished by the rite of circumcision, 
then must the Ishmaelites and Edomites also be brought 
within the pale of the Church ; for they too practised 
circumcision. And if we exclude them, (as indeed we 



THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH. 31 

must, Gen. 21: 12; Rom. 9: 7,8; Heb. 11: 18,) it 
then follows, either, that there existed no Church, that 
is, none distinguished by any visible sign from the people 
of the world, until the institution of the Passover, in the 
time of Moses ; or else, that sacraments are not essential 
to the Church of God. As a Church however did exist, 
the conclusion in order is, that sacraments are not essen- 
tial to it; for even after the calling of Abraham, there 
was no sign which strictly distinguished him and his seed 
from the people of the world, until the institution of the 
Passover, That which is essential, is a knowledge of 
the truth, a belief in it, and obedience to it. 

3, Priesthood. This belonged to the head of the 
family, Gen. 8 : 20 ; Job 1 : 5, who was succeeded by 
his eldest son, Gen. 49 : 3. When the family became a 
tribe, he exercised the priestly office for the tribe, and 
sustained at the same time the office of prince and ruler, 
Gen. 14 : 18. 

4. Worship. The worship of God during the patri- 
archal age was very unconstrained, being such as was 
prompted by conscience, and approved by reason, and 
consisted chiefly in sacrifices, Gen. 4 : 3—5; Gen. 8 : 20 ; 
12: 7; 13: 4; 22: 13; 26: 25; 31: 54; erection 
of altars, Gen. 8: 20; 12: 7; 13: 18; 26: 25; Gen. 
33: 20; 35: 7; in vows, Gen. 28: 20; prayers, Gen. 
12: 8; 21: 33; 24: 26, 48; Gen. 26: 25; 32: 9 
—12; and tythes Gen. 14: 20; Gen. 28 : 20—22. 

That there was also a public, as well as private wor- 
ship, and that too, at an early period, is, we think, certain 
from Gen. 4: 26, where it reads, "Then began men to 
call upon the name of the Lord; which, as we have 
shewn, (page 25) must mean public worship. 



32 THE PATRIARCHAL CHURCH. 

There does not appear to have been any fixed place 
(that is by divine appointment) for the worship of God, 
or the performance of sacrifices depending upon it, until 
the time of Jacob, who was commanded to go to Bethel, 
and dwell there, and build an altar unto God, Gen. 35 : 
1. For although an altar was built by Noah, immedi- 
ately after the deluge, and a number of them erected by 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the land of Canaan, 
the places, with the exception of the abovementioned, 
and another which was for a particular purpose, men- 
tioned in Gen. 22 : 9, were of their own choosing, and 
the erection was not in consequence of any express 
command to that effect, but because they were moved 
thereto by the promptings of devotion. The places,- 
however, usually chosen, were those where they had 
been favored with communications from God, Gen. 12 : 
7,8; 26:25; 33:20. And indeed, strictly speaking, 
it cannot be said that there existed, even after the erec- 
tion of said altar at Bethel, a fixed place for worship or 
sacrifice, as we learn from the subsequent history, that 
the residence of Jacob was but of short duration ; as he 
journeyed from thence, and for a time dwelt in Hebron, 
Gen. 35 : 16, 27, and from thence went down into 
Egypt where he died, Gen. 49 : 33. 

5. Sacred Days. Whether there were any certain 
days on which they held their public assemblies, and 
performed their sacrifices, does indeed not appear to a 
certainty ; but it is highly probable that there were, and 
that the Sabbath was one of those days; for it is said in 
Gen. 2 : 3, "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified 
it," and we further find that a definite period of seven 



THE JEWISH CHURCH. 33 

days occurs in Gen. 7: 4—14.; 8: 10—12, which im- 
plies that one day of the seven was marked by some 
distinction. 

6. Tythes. These are found as early as the time of 
Abraham, Gen. 14 : 20, and were paid to the head of 
the tribe, and as it seems, to defray the expenses of the 
religious rites, which he, as the priest of the tribe, may 
have incurred. 



SECTION II 



THE JEWISH CHURCH. 



The second form of the Church is denominated the' 
Jewish, and dates its commencement with the departure 
of the Israelites from Egypt, under the conduct of Moses, 
and subsisted to Christ. It was based on the promise 
given to Abraham, Gen. 12 : 1 — 3. Its institutions are" 
similar to those of the Patriarchal Church. They are 
the same in essence, but different in form, being adapted 
to the change of circumstances, and the exigencies of the 
people, and were very much multiplied. They are 

1. Sacrifices. During the journey of the Israelites 
through the wilderness, under the conduct of Moses, the 
subject of sacrifices was reduced to some system. Those 
which had existed under the Patriarchal form were re- 
tained, but accommodated to the circumstances of the 
times, and the number of attendant ceremonies increased. 
Besides these, there were others instituted, such as the 
sacrifice for sin, for trespasses, meat-offerings, libations, 
&c. Like in the Patriarchal age, sacrifices were of two 
kinda, the bloody and the unbloody. 



34 THE JEWISH CHURCH. 

The bloody sacrifices were those of living creatures 
slain as victims, and were the whole burnt offering, Lev. 
1:3; sin offering, Lev. 4 :, trespass offering, Lev; 5 :, 
peace offering, Lev. 3:1; thank offering, Lev. 7:11 — 
21; cojisecr at ion offering, Ex. 29 :, and offering of atone- 
ment, Lev. 16. 

The unbloody were those in which the fruits of the 
earth were offered, and were called "meat and drink 
offerings," Lev. 2:1; Ex. 29 : 40, 41, and consisted 
of cakes and wafers, mingled with oil, Lev. 7 : 12 ; fine 
flour, Lev. 5 : 11 ; oil and wine, Ex. 29 : 40. These, 
with few exceptions, always accompanied the bloody 
sacrifices, and are to be considered rather as appendages 
to them, than as a separate class of sacrifices. 

2. Purifications. These were very numerous in 
the Church under this form, Lev. 11 : 24« — 40, and chap- 
ters 12 : 14 : 15. Most of the instances of uncleanness 
ceased of themselves, after the expiration of a certain 
period of time, provided, the unclean person at the expi- 
ration of said time, washed his body and his clothes, 
Lev. 15 : 5. But in other instances, unclean persons 
were unable to free themselves from the stain of their 
defilement, until they had first gone through certain 
ceremonies of purification, prescribed in the ritual, Lev* 
12 and 14 chapters. The ceremonies of purification 
were not confined to individuals only, who from various 
causes contracted impurity, but extended likewise to 
tents, houses, and furniture, which had touched any 
thing unclean, or were contaminated by the dead, Num. 
19 : 11—22. 

3. Sacraments. There were two sacraments, viz : 



THE JEWISH CHURCH. 35 

Circumcision and the Passover- The former, whicn was 
instituted as early as the time of Abraham, Gen.- 17 :, 
was retained, and the latter added to it, being instituted 
in commemoration of the deliverance of the Hebrews 
from'Egyptian bondage, Ex. 12 : 1 — 13, and designed to 
be of regular and habitual observance, Ex. 12. 

4. Priesthood. There existed in the Church under 
the Jewish form, an order of priests, instead of the first 
born ; the priesthood being transferred by the command 
of God, communicated through Moses, from the tribe of 
Reuben, to whom it belonged by right of primogeniture 
to that of Levi, Num. 3 : 12 — 18; Num. 8 : 18, and 
Aaron and his sons separated to the office, Num. 17 : 1-"- 
8. In consequence of this fact that God took the Levites 
from among the children of Israel, instead of all the first 
born, to serve him as priests, the first born of the other 
tribes, who were originally priests by birth, were to be 
redeemed at a valuation, made by the priest, not exceed* 
ing five sheckels, from serving God in that capacity, 
Num.3: 44—51. 

5. Worship. The subject of prayer was left to the 
feelings of every individual, and no arrangements made 
in regard to it, further than to prescribe the benediction 
to be pronounced by the priest, Num. 6 : 24. 25 ; and a 
formulary according to which the Hebrews, in the pre- 
sentation of their first fruits, were to return thanks to 
God, for the possession of Canaan, Deut. 26 : 3 — 10, 13 
— 15. Hymns were sung on particular occasions, accom- 
panied with sacred dances, and instruments of music, 
Ex. 15 :, Judges 5. But nothing else is said of any 
other public devotional exercises which may be called 



36 THE JEWISH CHURCH. 

prayers,. except in the following passages: 1 Kit 
14— -21/23— 53 ; Ps. 72 : 2 ; Xeh. 8 : 6, and a few others 
in which mention is made of the singing of psalms in 
the temple. 

Public worship in the Jewish Church consisted in 
offering sacrifices, performing purifications, the celebra- 
tion of festivals, and the reading of the law in the temple, 
at the end of every sabbatic or seventh year during the 
continuance of the feast of Tabernacles, Deut. 31 : 10 — 
13. Sacrifices could not be offered except in the Taber- 
nacle in the wilderness, and afterward in the Temple at 
Jerusalem although the other exercises were restricted 
to no particular place ; for, we find that the praises of 
Grod were sung at a very ancient period in the schools of 
the prophets, and that those who felt any particular 
interest in religion, were assembled by the seers on the 
Sabbath and new moons, for prayer and religious instruc- 
tion, 1 Sam. 10 : 5—11 ; 1 Sam. 19 : 18—24 ; 2 Kings 
4:23. 

During the Babylonish captivity, the Jews who were 
then deprived of their customary religious privileges, 
were wont to collect around some prophet or pious man 
who taught them and their children in religion ; ex- 
horted to go'od conduct; and read out of the sacred 
books, Eze. 14 : 1 ; Eze. 20:1; Dan. 6 : 11; compare 
Neh. 8 : 18. These assemblies or meetings became in 
progress of time, fixed to certain places, and a regular 
order was observed in them. This was the origin of 
Synagogues. 

There were in the Church during this form of it fixed 
places for worship; viz : the Tabernacle in the wilderness; 



THE JEWISH CHURCH, 37 

and afterwards the Temple in Jerusalem, where sacrifices 
were to be offered, and where all adult Israelites were to. 
present themselves three times a year with presents, 
namely at the celebration of the three great festivals, the 
Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles, Deut. 16 : 
16, and the Synagogue* in which a part of the Law and 
Prophets were read and prayers offered on the Sabbath, 
Luke 4 : 17 ; Acts 13 : 15 ; Acts 15 : 21, and addresses 
made to the people, Luke 4 : 21 — 28. 

6. Sacred Days. The number of these was con- 
siderable — some being of Divine appointment, and the 
rest subsequently introduced in commemoration of some 
remarkable events. Those of Divine appointment were, 
the Sabbath, Ex. 20 : 8^-11 ; New Moons, Num. 10 : 
10 ; Num. 28 : 11—14 ; the feast of Pentecost, which 
continued one day, Ex, 34 : 22 ; the Passover, which 
continued seven days, Ex. 12 : 1 — 28 ; the feast of 
Tabernacles, which continued eight days, Lev. 23 : 34 \ 
the first and last in both cases, being properly festival 
days, in which no employment, further than was ne- 
cessary to prepare food was permitted, Ex. 12 : 16 ; Lev. 
23. : 7 j — and the day of Propitiation, Lev. 16 : 1 — 34 ; 
Num. 29 : 7, which was a day of fasting, and the only 
one during the whole year on which food was interdicted 
from evening to evening, Lev. 23 : 27 — 29. The other 
sacred days were anniversary fast days, introduced about 
the time of the captivity, in memory of the attack and 
capture of Jerusalem, Zech. 8 : 19 ; Jer. 52 : 6, 7, 13 j 
the burning of the Temple, Zech. 7:3; 8 : 19 ; and 
the death of Gedaliah, Jer. 41 : 4 ; Zech. 7:5; 8 : 19 \ 
and two festivals, the feast of Purim, Esth.3 : 7; Esth, 



38 THE JEWISH CHURCH. 

9 : 26 — 28 ) and the feast of the purification of the Tem- 
ple, or feast of Dedication, John 10 : 22. 

7. Tythes. These were of three kinds, viz : the tythe 
of fruit, of grain, and of animals. One part belonged 
to God, as the ruler of the state, and was assigned by 
him as a sort of salary to the Levites for their services, 
both sacred and civil, Lev. 27 : 30 j Num. 18 : 20 — 24 ; 
Deut. 14 : 22, 23 ; Neh. 13 : 5—12 ; another part was 
appointed for feasts and sacrifices, Deut. 14 : 22, 23, and 
on every third year the people were required to bring 
forth all the tythe of the increase of the same year, and 
make a feast at their own houses, for the servants, wid- 
ows, and orphans, the poor, and the Levites, Deut. 14 : 
28, 29 ; Deut. 26 : 12—15. The Levites made a subse- 
quent division of the tythes, and gave a tenth of them 
to the priests, Num. 18 : 25—32 ; Neh. 10 : 38 ; Neh. 
13 : 10—14. 

Besides the foregoing, there were several things intro- 
duced, which did not belong to the Church under the 
Patriarchal form. They are as follows : 

1. An order of priests instead of the first born. 

2. The people were confined to one altar, and one 
place, for the performance of all their sacrifices, and other 
ceremonies depending upon them, Deut. 12 : 5 — 11 ; 
1 Kings, 9:3. 

3. They had a written law, in which all their moral 
as well as religious affairs were regulated, and other 
duties specified, Deut. 31 : 24—26. 

4. A series of prophets are raised up for their in- 
struction. 

5. The number of sacred days is considerable^ and 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 39 

some of thein made rigidly " days of rest/' Ex. 20 : 8 
—11; Lev. 16:29. 

6. They were confined to one country, of no great ex- 
tent, and made cultivators of the ground. 

7. They were taught to regard God himself as their 
king. Many of their institutions had no other object 
than that of preventing a familiar intercourse with the 
Gentiles, Deut. 22 : 11, and of maintaining among them 
the knowledge and worship of the one true God. 



SECTION III. 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 



The third form of the Church is denominated the 
Christian, and was founded by the ministry and death 
of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah of the Old Testa- 
ment, Acts 13 : 32, 33, who had been shadowed out by 
the rites of the Jewish Temple worship ; for all these 
were " a shadow of good things to come, Heb. 10 : 1, 
u of which the body is Christ," Col. 2 : 17. All these 
rites, as well as the predictions of the prophets, and the 
promises contained in the Old Testament, were fulfilled 
in him, Luke 24 : 44. 

We have already seen that the Patriarchal dispensation 
or form, ended as soon as the Mosaic or Jewish com- 
menced; but here we find that the ending of the one runs 
into the beginning of the other, and that they both sub- 
sisted at the same time. The question then arises, At 
what time did the Jewish ceremonial institutions properly 
end, and what is the date of the commencement of the 
Christian dispensation ? 



40 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

The Christian dispensation began with John the Bap- 
tist, Mat. 3 : 1 — 3, who was to " prepare the way" for 
the Messiah as the founder of it, and the Jewish con- 
tinued till the destruction of Jerusalem, about thirty- 
seven years after the death of Christ. The dividing point 
therefore, between the two, may be said to be the death 
of Christ; for the Jewish dispensation, containing many 
typical representations of his death, could not end until 
that death took place, nor could the new dispensation 
properly commence, until the old was done away. 

The basis of the Christian Church is the complete 
revelation of the whole counsel of God concerning man's 
redemption, by Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of G-od 
after the departure of Christ from the world. While he 
remained on earth he made known to the multitude and 
to his disciples, so much of that counsel as they were 
prepared to receive, John 16 : 12, and promised the 
latter, that after his departure from them, he would 
send them " the Spirit of truth, who was to guide them 
into all truth/' John 16 : 13. They were however, not 
immediately put in possession of all necessary knowledge 
to execute their commission, but were gradually led into 
it, so that years elapsed before they were in possession 
of all things, Mark 16 : 15, compared with Acts 10 : ct 
scq., Acts 11 : 1 — 18. 

This complete revelation of the whole counsel of God 
concerning man's redemption, was not to be confined to 
Jews alone, but was to extend to all nations; to bo 
propagated throughout the world ; and to be addressed 
to Jew and Gentile, Mark 16 : 15. The Church was to 
be a universal one, gathered out of all nations of the 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 



41 



world ; for the promise given unto Abraham that " in 
d all the nations of the earth should be blessed/' 
had not yet been fulfilled. 

The institution* of the Christian Church are few in 
number. The many rites and ceremonies of the Jewish 
Church were abolished, Gal. 4 : 9 — 11 \ but this abolish- 
ment did not destroy its essence, as they did not consti- 
tute it. All of them were typical of the death of Christ, 
and when that death took place, they must of course 
cease. The form of the Church was therefore changed, 
but its essence still remained. It was the same olive 
tree, with other branches grafted therein, Rom. 11 : 16 
— 28, and membership in the Christian Church therefore 
remains the same as it was in the Jewish. 
The institutions of the Christian Church are : 
1. Public Worship. This, in the time of the apos- 
tles, consisted in the " singing of psalms, and hymns, 
and spiritual songs/' Eph. 5 : 19 ; Col. 3: 16; James 
5:13; prayers and the ministry of the word, Acts 6:6. 
and the celebration of the Lord's supper, Acts 20 : 1 — 
11 ; 1 Cor. 11 : 17 — 24. The place where the apostles 
and converts first assembled, for religious purposes, was 
in the Temple, Luke 24 : 53 ; Acts 2 : 46 ; for they 
were not yet willing to separate entirely from the Jewish 
Church. Whether they celebrated the Lord's supper 
there, is not probable; for with respect to the " breaking 
of bread/' which some suppose to mean the celebration 
of that rite, we are told that it was done "from house 
to house," Acts 2 : 42, 46. They likewise assembled in 
the Synagogues, Acts 9 : 20 ;13 : 5, 14, Acts 14 : 1 ; and 
when expelled from these, they assembled in private 
4 



42 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

houses. This accounts for the reading, "Churches in 
the houses of Aquilla ane Nymphas," Rom. 16: 3 — 5; 
ICor. 16:19; Col. 4 : 15. 

2. Sacraments. The Christian Church, like the 
Jewish, has but two sacraments; for tho.se of the latter 
were not entirely banished, but only changed in form. 
The sacraments are Baptism, Mat. 28: 18; 31 ark 10 : 
15, answering to, and in the place of eircumcisior 

2 : 11; and the Lord's Supper, Mat. 20: 26—29, an- 
swering to, and in the place of, the Passover, 1 Cor. 
5 : 7. The former is the initiatory rite, and the latter a 
commemorating ordinance, designed to be of habitual 
observance, 1 Cor. 11 : 26. 

3. Sacred Days. Although the primitive Chris- 
tians had particular days for assembling together, for the 
purpose of worship, as on " the first day of the week/' 
John 20: 19, 26; Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16:2; yet it 
was not on account of any sanctity in the day, or any 
positive command to that effect, but only because of 
expediency. All the Jewish holy days were abolished, 
Col. 2 : 16. The Christians assembled, in primitive 
times, on the first clay of the week, answering to our 
Sabbath ; because it was the day on which Christ rose 
from the dead, Mat. 28 : 1 — 6 ; and they afterwards 
observed this day, not from necessity, but as matter of 

, choice. 

4. Public Teachers. In consequence of the abol- 
ishment of the Jewish rites and ceremonies, by the in- 
troduction of Christianity, the order of priests, who had 
the superintendence and regulation of those rites and 
ceremonies, was rendered unnecessary, and the Levitical 
priesthood ceased. But in order to secure the accom- 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 43 

plishment of the promise given to Abraham, that " in 
his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed/' 
provision was made by the founder of Christianity for 
the establishment and propagation of the truth, by the 
selection and appointment of teachers and officers, who 
were divided iuto two classes, viz : the extraordinary, 
and the ordinary. 

THE EXTRAORDINARY TEACHERS. 

To this class belong the Apostles, the Prophets, and 
the Evangelists. 

The Apostles were those who had been the chief disci- 
ples of Christ, whom he instructed while on earth; 
who were ear- witnesses to his doctrine, and eye-witnesses 
to his miracles ; whom he invested with authority ; filled 
with his spirit; entrusted particularly with his doctrine 
and services ; whom he chose to raise the edifice of his 
Church, and whom, after his resurrection, he sent forth 
into the world to preach the gospel to all nations. They 
differed from the rest of the extraordinary teachers in 
the following particulars : 

1. They were immediately called and chosen by Christ 
himself. This was the case with every one of them, 
Mark 3 : 13—19, Matthias himself not excepted; for he 
was one of the men who had companied with the rest of 
the disciples, "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 
and out among them, beginning from the baptism of 
John, unto that same day that Christ was taken up" to 
heaven, and the Lord by determining the lot, declared 
his choice, and thus immediately called him to the office 
of an Apostle, Acts 1 : 21 — 26. Paul also was called 
and chosen by Christ himself, Acts 9 : 15, 16l 



44 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

2. They were to ho witnesses for Christ "unto the 
ends of the earth/' Acts 1 : 8, to the fact of his miracles 
and of his resurrection from the dead, and it was there- 
fore essentially necessary that the}- should see him after 
that resurrection, Acts 1 : 22. That they did see him 
is evident from John 20 : 26; Acts 1: 22; 1 Cor. 9:1. 

3. They derived their knowledge of Christianity im- 
mediately from Christ himself. The twelve apostles, 
including Matthias, were instructed by Christ during the 
time he was on earth, and as to Paul, though he was 
converted and called to the apostleship after the ascen- 
sion of Jesus, yet his knowledge of Christianity was not 
second-handed, but was derived from the same source as 
that from which the rest derived theirs ; for he " received 
it not of men ; neither was he taught it, but by the 
revelation of Jesus Christ," Gal. 1 : 11, 12 : Eph. 3 : 2, 3. 

4. They alone were the chosen instruments to confer 
the gift of the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, 
that is, of conferring on others spiritual gifts, and mi- 
raculous powers, Acts 8 : 14 — 17 ; Acts 19 : 6. 

5. They only were able to reveal the complete system 
of Christian doctrine and duty; to explain the true sense 
and spirit of the Old Testament, and to give forth to the 
world, the Xew Testament revelation which was to be 
the unalterable standard of faith and practice in 
all succeeding generations, Luke 24 : 27; Acts 26 : 22, 
23; Acts 28: 23; 1 Peter 1 : 25. For they had the 
promise of the Spirit, who was to " guide them into all 
truth," John 16: 13. and to brine; all things to their 
remembrance whatsoever Jesus had spoken unto them, 
John 14: 26; and although this promise was given to 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 45 

the eleven, (John 14 : 26, compare with John 13: 29, 30,) 
vet it had reference to the body of the apostles, and those 
who were subsequently added to that number also receiv- 
ed the Spirit, Acts 1 : 26; Acts 2 : 1—4; Eph. 3 : 2, 3. 

5. They were, (so to speak,) the oracles of God. As 
Jesus was about leaving them when he gave the promise 
of the Spirit, it was indispensably necessary from the 
nature of their apostolical office, which was to preach the 
gospel to all nations, that they be rendered infallible 
with regard to the religious truths which they were to 
teach, and this infallibility was secured unto them by 
the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which was 
" to guide them into all truth." From this it necessarily 
follows, that so far as the doctrines of Christianity were 
concerned, the apostles were to be regarded as the oracles 
of Grod ; as those through whom Grod spoke ; and their 
words were to be looked upon as proceeding from Grod 
himself. That they were thus regarded by the primitive 
Christians, appears from this, that they received no 
doctrinal writing, if it did not come from one of the 
apostles. 

The Prophets, who were next in authority to the apos- 
tles, were those who, under the direction of the Holy 
Spirit, were to edify the churches settled and established 
by the apostles, Acts 21 : 10; 1 Cor. 14: 4, and had 
the power of controlling themselves, so as to speak, or 
be silent, as they chose, 1 Cor. 14: 31, 32. Some of 
them were also inspired to foretell future events, Acts 
21 : 10. They spake only when under particular inspi- 
ration, and their teaching was consequently, only occa- 
sional. They do not appear to have travelled in company 



46 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 

with the apostles, to labor in the work of converting 
unbelievers, but were, for a time, left behind for the 
edification of those already converted to the < hri.-tian 
faith, Acts 11:2; Acts 13 : 1 • Acts 1 . To 

the prophets may also be added the ypu tin"! n 
those who possessed the "gift of tongues," and other 
"gifts/' 1 Cor. 12 : 8—10, which qualified them for the 
edification of the Christian Church where there was no 
regularly constituted ministry. The prophets mentioned 
in the New Testament, are Agabus, Acts 11 : 28 ; • 
and Silas, Acts 15 : 32, and some others, Acts 13 : 1. 

The Evangelists were the assistants of the apostles, and 
their work seems to have been, to attend them in their 
journey for the promulgation of the gospel; to 
them in the office of preaching, especially in places 
which the gospel had not reached before. They as 
also in settling churches; always acting under the direc- 
tion of the apostles, and bearing messages from them to 
those congregations which the apostles could not then 
personally visit ; serving to supply their places, in re- 
forming abuses and settling order. But their whole 
history manifestly proves, that their superintendence in 
particular places, was not stationary and for life, but 
occasional and ambulatory. The words of Paul to Titus 
clearly shew this, — " For this cause I left thee in Crete, 
that thou shouldst set in order the things that are want- 
ing, and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee," 
Titus 1:5. This is not the language of one who had 
assigned him this, as his fixed station, but of one who 
had entrusted him with the execution of a special pur- 
pose, which the apostle could not then execute himself, 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 47 

and which, when Titus had executed, the sole intention 
Of his presence there wag accomplished. That they still 
remained in their extraordinary character of evangelists ; 
and were still under the direction of those apostles whom 
they assisted in thai capacity, appears from this, that 
Paul enjoins Timothy to make despatch in regard to the 
ilia , b charged within Asia, that he might he 

with him in Rome before winter, 2 Tim. 4:2. As to 
Titus, Paul orders him to meet him at Xicopolis, where 
he intended to winter, Titus 3 : 12, and afterwards he 
writes to Timothy, that Titus was gone to Dalmatia, 2 
Tim. 4 : 10, 11. The evangelists, so far as we have 
any notice of them, were PUUp i Acts 21 : 8 ; Timothy, 
2 Tim. 4 : 5, and probably Titus; for his situation, ser- 
vice, and trust, so perfect]}- correspond with those of 

Timothy, that we cannot hesitate a moment in affirming 
- their functions were the same, and that they both 

served as assistants to the apostle Paul. Luke, and 

3 lark were also probably evangelists. 

The offices of apostle, prophet, and evangelist, as well 
1 men, 1 Cor. 12 : 8 — 10. were not intended 

to be of permanent or perpetual standing in the Christian 

Church, but were designed to be temporary, and to con- 
e only until the special object, for which they were 

instituted, was accomplished, viz : the organization and 
)lishment of the Christian Church. 

THE ORDINARY TEACHERS AND OFFICERS: 

The ordinary teachers and officers of the Church were 
those unto whom was committed the teaching and gov- 
anient of the churches, which were founded and estab- 



48 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

lished by the extraordinary teachers. They had a j 

locality, and usually spent their lr 

There were no removals of the ordii 

officers, in the apostolic age, from one ehai her; 

for, as already remarked, the ambulatory fmacti 

belonged to the extraordinary ones. B< 

names used promiscuously in Scripture, with reference 

to the ordinary officers, there are three terms more 

frequently applied to them, viz : / 

1 Tim, 3: 13; Titus 1:7; Elder? OT ,.,. 1 

Tim. 3: 17; Acts 11: 30; Acts 14 : 23; Acts 20: 17: 

James 5: 14; and Deacons, 1 Tim. 3: 8, 10, 12; 

Phil. 1:1. 

The title Bishop, denotes one who is appointed to 
oversee, or to inspect any thing, and was applied to those 
who had the oversight or pastoral care of the churches 
founded hj the extraordinary teachers, and whose duty 
it was to "feed the flock" or Church of G-od. The term 
denotes the nature and duties of their office, and implies, 
not only the duty of instructing or teaching, hut also 
that of governing or ruling the Church, and of directing 
its affairs so as to promote its edification and peace, _' 
20:28—31. 

The title Elder, or Presbyter was a title of di 
among the Jews, and arose from the fact that the teach- 
ers and rulers of the synagogues were originally selected 
from among the oldest members. It afterwards became 
a title of office, and was then applied to the officer 
whether he was a senior in years or not. As the Jev. 
synagogues served as models in the organization and 
government of Christian churches, the title Elder, passed 



THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 49 

over unto the Litter and was applied as a title of dignity 
to all those that held sacred offices, because such were 
generally chosen from among the earliest converts, and 
applied also to those who ruled, that is, who exer- 
cised government and discipline in the Church, as well 
as to those who taught, 1 Tim. 5 : 17; 1 Pet. 5 : 1, 2. 
That these titles, "bishop" and "elder" did not denote 
two distinct grades of office, but were applied in the 
apostolic and primitive churches, to the same persons 
will appear from the following considerations : 

1. We are expressly told that elders were ordained, 
not only in every city, Tit. 1 : 5, but that Paul and 
Barnabas ' : ordained elders in every church, Acts 14 : 23. 

2. Elders and bishops are spoken of, in the plural 
number, Acts 20 : 17, 28. Some churches, therefore, 
had a plurality of them. See Acts 14 : 23. 

3. In Philippians 1:1, Paul speaks but of "bishops 
and deacons, " and thus recognizes only two distinct 
offices. Now as elders were ordained in every church 
there must have been such at Philippi, and if so, then 
they must be included in the term " bishops," or else 
the terms " bishops," and " elders" were interchangeable 
— cither of them being applied to the same persons. 

4. That the terms "elders and "bishops" are, in the 
New Testament, interchanged, and applied to the same 
persons, clearly appears from Acts 20 : 17, compared 
with verse 28 of the same chapter. For those who in 

17, are called "elders," are termed "overseers," 
or bishops, in verse 28 ; the former perhaps being the 
title of dignity, the latter denoting the nature and duties 
of their office. 



50 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 

The term Deacon, is chiefly used to denote an officer 
in the Church whose business it w 
the poor, and to administer the aim- 
Acts 6 : 1 — 9. While t ; - or elders, attended 
to the spiritual - of the Church, the <[• 
attended to its temporal inter 

Although the Christian Church is remarkably distin- 
guished from the Jewish, it is not essentially bo. It is 
the same in essence, as the latter. It is distinguished, 

1. By its not being confined to one particular place. 

2. By its not being limited or restricted in its public 
worship to particular days. 

3. By its setting aside temporal rewards and punish- 
ments, and teaching the doctrine of future rewards and 
punishments. 

4. By it? clearness and fulness of revelation concerning 
the redemption of man. 

5. By its superior and excellent promises : the for- 
giveness of sins, and eternal life. 



^itri luniti. 



QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE RIGHT OF INFANTS OF 
BELIEVING PARENTS TO BAPTISM.. 

Having shewn in the preceding part how the whole 
collective body of the professing worshippers of G-od, in 
every age from Adam, down to the present day, (as 
denoted by the word Church in the singular number,) is 
distinguished, we now come to consider several questions 
relative to the right of infants of believing parents to 
baptism. 

QUESTION I. 

h the Christian Church the same in essence as 
the Jewish ? 

Before we enter into an investigation of this subject, 
it will be necessary to make a few preliminary remarks 
on the above question. It must be borne in mind, that 
a " Church," or " society, called out from the world, 
and set apart to the service of God," has essence as well 
as form, and the definitions here given of the words, 
" essence" and "form" must be well fixed in the mind, 
as both will frequently occur in the course of the argu- 
ment. The necessity of being in agreement concerning 
them arises from the circumstance, that if the same 
meaning, which an author assigns to his words, be not 
assigned to them by his readers, they will not be able 
to understand, nor perceive the force of the remarks 
made by him. 



52 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 

By the words "essence of a Church" we mean every 

thing that is essential to its < arid without which 

it could not exist. By the term " form." we mean the 
external appearance without those essentia] qualities, or 

in other words, the external rites. The question then 
is this : Is the Christian Church with regard to every 
thing that is essentially necessary to its existence, the 
same as the Jewish ? 

That both Churches are one and the same in essence, 
is evident, 

1. From the words of Cpirist. In Mat 8: 11, 
12, Jesus says, that "many shall come from the I 
and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, 
Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but the 
children of the kingdom shall be east out: into outer dark- 
ness." The phrase "kingdom of heaven" is synonymous 
with "kingdom of God," which, as we have already 
shewn, has several significations, and we must there . 
determine the meaning of the phrase in this place. The 
nature of the case forbids the interpretation of the term, 
in the sense, denoting the kingdom of glory above : 
the expression in verse 12, that "the children of the 
kingdom shall be cast out" cannot be affirmed of those 
who are admitted into it j for it is to be "an eternal in- 
heritance," Heb. 9 : 15, — "an inheritance incorruptible, 
undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven" 
for them, 1 Pet. 1:4. It must then mean the kingdom 
of grace, or Church of God on earth, from which tl 
who are admitted may be cast cut, and to which the 
Jews, to whom the words were spoken, belonged. The 
reason why it is called " a kingdom," is, because it re- 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 53 

sembles one. It has its laws, — viz., all the precepts of 
the gospel ; it has its subjects — all those who believe in 
Christ; and it has its king — the Lord Jesus Christ to 
whom " all power in heaven and on earth" is given, Mat. 
28 : 18. The coining of many "from the east and from 
the west," denotes the admission into that kingdom of 
men of all descriptions ; of all countries ; and all pro- 
fessions, and their sitting down, denotes a participation 
in the fulfilment of the promises given to, and of the 
same happiness and blessings enjoyed by, Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob. This was something to which the Jews con- 
sidered themselves entitled, as they prided themselves 
upon being the natural descendants of Abraham, John 
8 : 39, and imagined that by virtue of the covenant made 
with him, God was bound to bestow upon them every 
blessing, Mat. 3:9. Jesus, however shews, to the 
contrary, and gives them to understand, that the Gentiles, 
on account of their great faith, like that of the centurion, 
would obtain the blessings promised unto, and share in 
the happiness enjoyed by, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
whilst they, who believed not, yet regarded themselves 
as the " children of the kingdom," would be "cast out," 
and utterly deprived of all its blessings and enjoyments. 
This interpretation of the phrase "kingdom of heaven," 
as denoting the Church of God on earth, is in exact ac- 
cordance with the context. A centurion, it is said, came 
unto Jesus beseeching him in behalf of his servant, who 
was sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. Jesus 
answers, that he will come and heal him ; but the centu- 
rion says, "lam not worthy that thou shouldst come 
under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant 
shall be healed." And when Jesus heard this, he wen- 



54 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 

dered, and said unto them that followed, "Verily I say 
unto you, I have not found so great faith, no not in 
Israel." These words shew very plainly, that the cen- 
turion was not a Jew ; for he evinced a faith of which 
Jesus himself says, that he had found none so great " in 
Israel;" consequently, he must have been a Gentile. This 
circumstance then gave occasion to Jesus to speak of the 
future condition of the Church, here called the " kingdom 
of heaven," and to point out a change that should take 
place therein, viz : that the G-entiles, on account of their 
faith in him, (of which the centurion's, so to speak, was a 
specimen,) would come from the most distant places, 
" from the east and from the west" and " sit down with 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," that is, partake of all the 
promises, happiness, and blessings, promised to and en- 
joyed by them, while the Jews, the children then belong- 
ing to the " kingdom" or Church, would be cast out, on 
account of their unbelief," into outer darkness," that is, 
experience all the misery which necessarily follows a 
deprivation of such blessings. 

From what has been said, it is plain that the Gentiles, 
or those coming "from, the east and from the west," 
would only be admitted into the same ''kingdom" or 
Church to which the Jews belonged, and only partake 
of what had been provided for and expected by the latter, 
and that too on the same terms, viz : faith in Christ, and 
consequently the essence of that kingdom or Church 
must remain the same, notwithstanding the casting out 
of the Jews, and the admission of the Gentiles ; for no 
change is represented as taking place but that of subjects, 
and surely this can never destroy its essence. 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 55 

That they arc essentially the same, appears also from 
another passage in Mat. 22 : 2 — 10, which is parallel to 
Mat. 8 : 11, 12. The rule in Hermeneutics, or the sci- 
ence of interpretation, relative to parallel passages, (and 
one too, that needs no proof,) is, that " whenever two 
parallel texts or passages occur in an author, whether 
sacred or profane, the clearer one must be taken as a 
guide in explaining the darker." The passage in Mat. 
22 : 2 — 10, being more clear and explicit than that in 
Mat. 8 : 11, 12, must therefore be taken as a guide, and 
it not only strengthens, but confirms, the interpretation 
given of the latter; for it " likens the kingdom of heaven 
unto a certain king, who made a marriage for his son, 
and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden 
to the wedding, but they would not come/' 

That this passage is parallel to, but more amplified 
than that in Mat. 8:11, 12, will appear from a com- 
parison of the two. Both speak of the " kingdom of 
heaven;" of a change which is to take place therein, viz., 
the rejection of one class and the admission of another, 
assigning the same cause in both instances, viz., faith in 
the latter, and the want of it in the former. Both speak 
of a "feast," the one in direct language, and the other 
by implication; (for, as Dr. Clarke observes, "the proper 
meaning of the original, in our version, ' sit down' is 
1 sitting down to meat/ intimating the recumbent posture 
used by the Easterns at their meals.") Hence they are 
parallel. 

That the term " kingdom of heaven," in Mat. 22 : 2, 
has the same meaning as in Mat. 8 : 11, 12, may already 
be concluded from the fact, that the former is parallel to 



56 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CIICKCII. 

the latter; but it is clearly established by the circum- 
! mentioned in the parable, which are wholly in- 
applicable to the term, in the sense denoting the ki 
of glory. In order to shew this more clearly, we shall 
explain the parable. 

By the " certain It&ng" we are to understand Clod; by 
u his Son," the Lord Jesus. The •• m ' of his 

Son, is the incarnation of Christ, or his espousing human 
nature, and taking it into union with himself. The 
" marriage feast ■" is the gospel economy, during which 
men are invited to partake of the blessings purchased 
by, and consequent upon, the incarnation and death of 
our Saviour. Those who were hidden to the wedding, 
were the Jews in general, who had the sacrifice for sin 
pointed out by various rites, ceremonies, and sacrifices 
under the law, and who, by all the prophets, had been 
constantly invited to believe in and receive the promised 
Messiah. The call was the invitation of the gospel j the 
servants, by whom it was made, were John the Baptist, 
and the seventy disciples sent by Jesus; for these preach- 
ed, that u the kingdom of heaven" which the prophets 
foretold, was "at hand," Mat. 3:2; Luke 10 : 9. The 
other servants were the apostles, who were sent forth 
with a more pressing invitation, and a more particular 
description of the blessing to be enjoyed under the Gospel. 
The making light of the invitation, denotes the indiffer- 
ence of the Jews, in general, to the call of the Gospel. 
The remnant who took the servants and entreated them 
spitefully, and slew them, were the chief priests, and 
rulers, who persecuted and killed the servants of God. 
The armies sent forth were the Roman troops, com- 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 57 

missioned to execute the purposes of God ; the murder- 
ers were the Jews; and the city which was burned was 
Jerusalem. The going into the highways and bidding 
all. was the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles; the 
gathering together as many as they found, both bad and 
good, denotes the day of judgment ; and the casting out 
of him who had not a wedding garment, denotes a final 
separation of the wicked from the righteous. 

From this explanation it is clear, that the term "king- 
dom of heaven" denotes the Church under the gospel 
dispensation, whose blessings are set forth under the 
notion of a nuptial festival, to which the Jews were first 
invited, but refused to come, whereupon the invitation 
was afterwards given to the Gentiles, who accepted it. 

Now as the marriage feast represents the gospel 
economy, it shews, and that too very plainly, that the 
Gentiles were only admitted to, and only received or 
partook of what had previously been prepared for, and 
offered to the Jews, but refused by them. As the dinner 
when the Gentiles as other guests were admitted, was 
the same as it had been when the Jews were called and 
refused to come, and the same as it was when the ser- 
vants were first sent out to call them ; it proves that the 
gospel economy was the same after the admission of the 
Gentiles as it was before; for the blessings promised to 
the Gentiles were no other than those which had in the 
first place, been offered, to the Jews. This is clear from 
Mat. 8: 11, 12, where "the children of the kingdom" 
are represented as being cast out, and is moreover plainly 
asserted by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13 : 46, where, 
in speaking to the Jews, they say, " It was necessary 



58 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH 

that the word of God should first have been spoken to 
you, but seeing you put it from you, and ju<j 
unworthy of everlasting life, lo ! we turn to the Gentiles." 
The terms employed by our Saviour certainly do not 
favor the idea of any other chanye than that of vubf 
in Mat. 8 : 11, 12, and of guests in Mat.22 : 2, and both 
these changes may take place without destroying the 
essence either of the kingdom, or of the feast. Then, as 
the essence of the kingdom is not destroyed by ejecting 
or casting out those who at first are therein, or belong to 
it, nor by admitting others, who formerly did not belong 
to it ; and as the essence of the marriage feast is not de- 
stroyed by the refusal to attend, made by those who were 
first called, nor by the compliance of those who were 
subsequently invited ; and as the term, "kingdom of 
heaven," denotes in both passages the Church of God on 
earth, so the ejection of the Jews from, and the admis- 
sion of the Gentiles into, the Church, cannot destroy its 
essence; consequently the Church or "kingdom of 
heaven," as it now exists under the gospel dispensation", 
is the same in essence as it was under the Jewish. See 
Luke 14 : 16—24. 

This doctrine of the identity of the Jewish and of the 
Christian Church, as to their essence, is also taught by 
our Saviour in Mat. 21 : 43, where he says to the chief 
priests and elders, (see verse 23,) " therefore say I unto 
you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and 
given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 
The "kingdom" here spoken of, as we have already 
shewn, is figuratively represented by the vineyard, and 
the passage just quoted must therefore be considered in 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 59 

its relation to and connexion with the parable preceding 
it, and interpreted accordingly, and by so doing it will 
be found to prove unquestionably the following points : 

1. That a " kingdom of God" existed previous to its 
being taken away ; for certainly it could not have been 
taken away, if it had no previous existence. 

2. It proves that this kingdom was on earth. For 
although the term sometimes denotes the kingdom of 
glory, it is evident that such cannot be the sense in this 
connexion; for the transactions represented as taking 
place in the vineyard, (figuratively representing the 
kingdom,) can never be made to accord with any scriptural 
idea of the kingdom of glory, and consequently must 
mean the Church of God on earth. 

3. It proves that this kingdom wa3 in possession of 
the chief priests and Pharisees ; for Jesus spake to them, 
verse 23 ; he spake of them and says, " the kingdom shall 
be taken from them, verse 45 ; and that they considered 
themselves in possession of this kingdom is evident from 
this, that " they percei vecl Jesus spake this parable of 
them," verse 45; Mark 12 : 12; comp. 11 : 27 ; Luke 20 : 
19. Hence the term must mean the Church of God 
among the Jews. 

4. The passage declares the kingdom shall be taken 
from them, and given to another nation. " Therefore I 
say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from 
you and given to another nation/' Now if this " king- 
dom/' when given to the Gentiles, constituted, (as indeed 
it did,) the Church of God among them, then it must 
previously have been the Church among the Jews ; for 
from them was it taken and given to the former. And 
hencse, 



60 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 



5. It proves that it was essentially the same when 
given to the Gentiles, as it had been when 1 by 

the Jews. For the change represented as taking place, 
is not a change of the vineyard, but a change of hus- 
bandmen ; the vineyard with all its appurtenances, (v. 
33,) rights and privileges being merely transferred by 
the Lord thereof, from one class of husbandmen unto 
another, from whom was required all that had previously 
been demanded from the former, viz : the rendering him 
"the fruits in their season." So the change in the 
kingdom is not a change of the kingdom itself, but a 
change of possessors ; the kingdom being only transferred 
from one nation to another, from whom every thino- ig 
demanded that had been previously demanded from the 
first, viz : the " bringing forth the fruits thereof.' ' 

Thus, the proposition for which we have contended is, 
we think, established upon a firm basis, by the evidence 
drawn from the words of our Saviour himself; for he 
says that " many shall come from the east and from the 
west and sit down in the kingdom, while the children of 
the kingdom shall be cast out," Mat. 8 : 11, 12 j that the 
places of those who had first been called to the marriage 
feast but refused to come, shall be filled by other guests, 
Mat. 22 : 2—10 ; and that the kingdom of God shall be 
taken from the Jews and given unto the Gentiles, "a 
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, Mat. 21 : 43 ; in 
all of which passages the term " kingdom" denotes the 
Church of God. To me it seems that no other figures nor 
terms could have been employed, to point out more 
clearly, express more forciblv, and shew more definitively, 
that the " kingdom of heaven," as it exists under the 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 61 

Christian dispensation, is the same in essence as it was 
under the Jewish, than the figures and terms employed 
by Jesus in the foregoing passages. And if He did not 
regard the "kingdom" under both dispensations, that is, 
the Jewish and Christian Churches, to be essentially the 
same, then it is altogether inexplicable, why he should 
use figures, and employ terms, which so manifestly carry 
the idea with them, 

That both Churches are essentially the same, is evident, 
2. Fro.m the words of Paul. The passage in 
which this doctrine is recognized, is recorded in Rom. 
11 : 17 — 24, where the apostle speaks of "a good olive 
tree," having some of its branches broken off, and others 
of a wild olive ingrafted. The figure is borrowed from 
the custom of ingrafting the branches or scions of the 
wild olive, which bare no fruit, into the stock of barren 
olives in a state of cultivation, in order to produce fruit- 
fulness; and by a careful perusal of the preceding part 
of the chapter, in connexion with the passage under 
consideration, it will at once be perceived, that the good 
olive tree represents the Jews, and the wild one the 
Gentiles. 

The good olive tree must then represent the former, 
either as a nation, or else as a Church. If it be main- 
tained that it represents them as a nation, then consist- 
ently with such a view of the subject, it must likewise be 
maintained that faith was necessary to citizenship among 
the Jews ; that by faith the Gentiles becajne citizens of 
Palestine ; that by faith they became incorporated into 
the Jewish nation ; and by faith became entitled to all 
their national privileges. But as these consequences. 



G2 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 

which are fairly deductible from such a view, arc entirely 
inadmissible, and highly absurd, the logical conclusion 
is, that the premise itself is false, and hence the 
position is at once overthrown. The good olive tree 
must then represent the Jews as a Church, into which 
the Gentiles, as wild olive branches, were ingrafted by 
faith, and by which they became members, and entitled to 
all its blessings and privileges; and this view is in exact 
accordance with many passages of Scripture. See Gen. 
12:3; Mat. 8 : 11, 12; 22^ 2—10; 21 : 33—13 : Acts 
13 : 46; Rom. 1 : 16: Gal. 3 : 7—9, 13, 14. And as 
some of the Jews are represented as losing those bless- 
ings and privileges, because of unbelief, and the Gentiles, 
as obtaining them by faith, it is clear that the latter 
enjoyed nothing more than what the former once enjoyed, 
and what many of them still enjoyed. This is expressly 
asserted in verse 17, where the apostle speaking of the 
Gentiles says, that they were " grafted in among them'* 
(the believing Jews) " and with them partake of the 
root and fatness of the olive tree," which he certainly 
could not, with any degree of propriety have said, if he 
did not regard the Church after the admission of the 
Gentiles, the same, in essence, as before. 

But in order to discover whether the above be the true 
interpretation of the text, let us enter into a closer ex- 
amination of the figure. It is easy to perceive, that the 
passage in Rom. 11: 17 — 24, is antithetical; for it 
opposes a good olive tree, to a wild one ; natural branches 
to ingrafted ones; and branches broken off by unbelief, 
to others standing by faith; and the rule in Heimeneu- 
tics, relative to such passages, is this, "In the interpre- 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 63 

xation of antithetical propositions, it is only necessary to 
iincl the moaning of one member of the antithesis, as the 
sense of the other must be its opposite," The good olive 
tree, or that which bears fruit, as we have already shewn, 
represents the Jews as a Church, and tlie wild one which 
bears no fruit, represents the Gentiles as without the 
Church. The toatwral branches represent the Jews who 
always belonged to the Church, and the ingrafted ones, 
the Gentiles who ne\ex belonged to it. The breaking 
off of some of the natural branches signifies the expulsion 
or rejection of the Jews from the Church, represented 
by the good olive : and the ingrafting of wild olive 
branches in their stead, signifies the admission of the 
Gentiles into that whence the Jews were expelled. The 
oral branches being ■" broken off because of unbelief/* 
>tes the rejection or expulsion of the Jews from the 
Church, which rejection would continue so long as they 
abode in unbelief ; and the " standing of the ingrafted 
ones by faith," denotes the admission of the Gentiles 
"by faith" into, and their connexion with, the Church, 
which would continue only whilst that faith lastecL 

That the foregoing is the true interpretation of the 
passage, appears, not only from its agreement with the 
context, and with the design of the chapter itself, which 
is to shew to the Gentiles and believing Jews, that the 
rejection of the Jews was neither total nor final, Rom. 
11 : 25, 26, but also from its harmonizing with the words 
of our Saviour, Mat 21 : 48, that the "kingdom of God" 
should be taken from the latter and be given to the 
former. And not only does the interpretation shew, that 
the Gentiles received no more than what the Jews ha/1 



64 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 

enjoyed, and what many of them still enjoyed; but the 
same is expressly declared in the passage itself. v< 
where the ingrafted branches representing the Gentiles 
are said to be " grafted in among the natural branches, 
and with them partake of the root and fatness of the olive 
tree." The natural branches representing the Jev. 
there considered as springing from "the root/' which 
must therefore represent Abraham, from whom the Jews 
sprung; and as it is called "holy," that is, con.- 
and set apart to the service of God, so are also the 
branches " holy," or consecrated and set apart to the ser- 
vice of God. The " fatness of the olive tree" must then 
represent the promises made to the patriarchs, and the 
spiritual privileges of the Jewish Church. As the 
"root" is supposed to be planted in a good soil, which 
yields unto the tree its "fatness'" the soil must represent 
the covenant made with Abraham, which contained the 
promise of spiritual, as well as temporal blessings. | Gen. 
12:3; Acts 13 : 32,33; Rom. 4 : 11; Gal. 3 : 
13, 14,) and which yielded unto the Jewish Church ail 
its spiritual privileges. As the branches derived their 
fruitfulness, through the root, which drew it from the 
soil in which it was placed, so the Jews derived their 
spiritual blessings and privileges through Abraham, as 
their root, from the covenant made with him, or in which 
he was placed. As some of the branches were 1 
off, not having that which predisposed and enabled them 
to receive and partake of the root, and the fatness of the 
olive tree; so some of the Jew-, n ■ tg faith, by 

which they could appropriate to themsei 
and blessings given to Abraham, (who himself had been 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 65 

placed in the covenant on account of it,) were also re- 
jected or expelled from the Church. As other branches 
were cut out of the olive tree, which was by nature wild, 
and brought forth no fruit, and grafted into the stock 
whence the natural branches had been broken off; so 
the Gentiles were taken from a state of nature, and 
placed in the same Church from which the Jews were 
expelled. As the natural branches were not all broken 
off, nor all of the wild olive ingrafted into the stock, so 
the Jews were not all rejected, nor all the Gentiles ad- 
mitted. As the inserted branches derived their fatness 
from the root, which drew it from the soil in which it 
was placed, so the Gentiles derived their spiritual bless- 
ings and privileges by faith from Abraham, who obtained 
them in the covenant made with him. As it would ill 
become the inserted branches to boast against those 
which were broken off, and whose places they filled; so 
it would ill become the Gentiles, to boast against the 
Jews whose places tliey filled ; and the apostle therefore 
admonishes them, v. 18, not to exult over, much less to 
insult, them, urging as a reason why they should not, 
that they did not bear the root, but the root bore them j 
for though the Jews were the branches with respect to 
the covenant, they were the root with respect to the 
Gentiles, the fulfilment of the promises contained in 
the covenant being first given to the former, and from 
them to the latter, Acts 13 : 32, 33, 46. Anticipating, 
however, that the Gentiles, in justification of their 
boasting over the fallen Jews, would urge that the latter 
were excluded on purpose to give place unto them, the 
apostle enters into a consideration of it, and though he 
concedes that the Jews were indeed excluded, yet he 



66 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 

denies the cause of their rejection being merely to give 
place unto the Gentiles; for,- says he, "they v. r e re re- 
jected because of unbelief " and this he illusti 
opposite, the true cause of the standing of the Gentile-, 
viz: "faith" and admonishes the latter not to be "high- 
minded but to fear;" for the Jews also once stood by 
faith, but giving place to unbelief they fell, and 
Gentiles only " stand by faith," the same mig 
unto them ; and this admonition is enforced by a reason 
taken from God' 3 severity to the Jews as the natural 
branches, from which he argues that he will much less 
spare them as foreign branches, if they give place to 
unbelief, since he did not spare the Jews, who had so 
long been his people, and so long enjoyed his favor and 
protection. 

We shall now collect and arrange in order the several 
particulars established by the above interpretation. We 
have already sufficiently shewn that the good olive tree 
represents the Jews as a Church, not as a nation, and 
the passage in Roni. 11 : 17 — 24 therefore proves, 

1. That a Church existed before the rise of the Chris- 
tian, or the conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity, 
even as the olive tree existed prior to the ingrafting of 
other branches. 

2. That that Church was among the Jews; for they 
are represented by the good olive, and the Gentiles by 
the wild one. 

3. That that Church extended back as far as the time 
of Abraham; for he is represented as being the root, and 
the Jews the branches of the good olive tree. 

4. That some of those in the Church were rejected, 
and others without, admitted. 



THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 67 

5. That those rejected were Jews, and those admitted, 
G-entiles. 

6. That the latter were admitted because they pos- 
sessed that for want of which the former were rejected, 
viz: faith. 

7. That those admitted enjoyed nothing more than 
what the rejected had enjoyed, what many of their 
brethren still enjoyed, and what they themselves would 
again enjoy if they did not abide in unbelief. And hence 
the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the 
foregoing particulars, is, that the Church after the ad- 
mission of the Gentiles was essentially the same as before; 
for not only the root, and the stock, but many of the 
natural branches of the good olive tree are left standing, 
and there is not the least intimation given, that the stock 
had been, or would be, rooted out. On the contrary, 
all stands as it stood before, except that some of the 
natural branches were broken off, and those of a wild 
olive ingrafted, which although it might materially alter 
the form, yet it could in no wise destroy the essence of 
the tree, and it therefore remained essentially the same 
as before. It had still the same root, the same trunk, 
and many of the same branches ; and the same principle 
too, which united the natural branches, also united the 
ingrafted ones ; whilst the same cause that occasioned 
the breaking off of some of the former, would also occa- 
sion the breaking off of the latter. And as reason and 
common sense teach us, that the tree remains essential^ 
the same, after the ingrafting of other branches, as it 
was before, however much its form might be altered ; so 
they also teach us, that the Church, represented by that 



68 THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH CHURCH. 

tree, must be essentially the same, after the admission of 
the Gentiles as it was before, or in other words, that the 
Jewish and Christian Churches must be the same in 
essence, notwithstanding their material difference in 
form. See also Eph. 2: 14. 

Let us now see what bearing the foregoing has on the 
subject of the "right of infants of believing parents to 
baptism. " As the Christian and Jewish Churches are 
the same in essence, the former being nothing more than 
the kingdom of God taken from the Jews and given to 
the Gentiles, or the ingrafting of the latter into the 
Jewish stock, it consequently follows. 

1. That all the rights and privileges, belonging to the 
Jews, must of course be transferred to the Gentiles ; 
otherwise it could neither be said, that the latter received 
the kingdom which was taken from the Jews, nor that 
they were ingrafted into the Jewish stock. 

2. It follows, that those who had a right to member- 
ship in the Jewish Church, must also have a right thereto 
in the Christian. As believers had a right and were 
admitted to membership in the former, so are they also 
entitled thereto in the latter. 

3. That as infants ofldicring parents had a right to 
membership in the Jewish Church, so they must also 
have a right thereto in the Christian Church. 

4. As infants were admitted into the Jewish Church 
in consequence of the right derived unto them through 
their parents' connexion, so must they also be admitted 
into the Christian in consequence of the connexion of 
their parents. 

5. As infants had to be admitted into the Jewish 



MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHUECH. 69 

Church by the same rite by which adults were admitted, 
so they must also be admitted into the Christian, by the 
same rite by which adults are admitted. 

6. As adults are admitted into the Christian Church 
by baptism, so must infants also, consequently, they 
must be baptised. 

As these conclusions however, may probably be ob- 
jected to on the ground that "the Church under the 
Christian dispensation has assumed a form very different 
from that which it had under the Jewish, and that the 
right of infants to membership was thereby abrogated," 
we must therefore inquire whether membership belongs 
to the form or to the essence of the Church. 



QUESTION II. 

Does membership belong to the form or to the 
essence of the Church ? 

It is admitted that the Church, under the Christian 
dispensation, has assumed a form different from that under 
the Jewish, but it does by no means necessarily follow, 
that the right of infants of believing parents to member- 
ship in the former was thereby abrogated. To assert 
this would be taking something as granted, which is not 
yet proven, and hence, before the foregoing conclusions 
can, with any degree of propriety, be objected to, on the 
ground that "the Church, under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, has assumed a form different from that which 
belonged to it under the Jewish," it must first be ascer- 



70 MEMBERSHIP CT THE CHURCH. 

tained, "whether membership belongs to the 
form of the Church/''' It is certain, that infant.- of be- 
lieving parents had a right to membership, and 
admitted into the Church under the Jewish dispensation, 
and if it can be made appear that membership belongs 
to the form, then it may be argued that infants are not 
to be admitted into the Church, under the present dis- 
pensation, inasmuch as it has changed its form. But if 
it can be shewn that membership belongs to the i 
then infants must be admitted, as both Churches are the 
same in essence. 

We have already shewn that the import of the term 
" Church/' is "a society of men called out from among 
other men, and set apart for the worship of God;" and 
we have seen that it has essence as well as form ; the 
former term denoting every thing essentially necessary 
to its constitution or existence, and the latter the external 
appearance or external rites. Membership therefore must 
belong either to the essence of a Church, or to the form . 
If it be maintained that it belongs to the latter, then the 
first consequence deducible from such a position is, that 
there may be a Church before there are members ; and 
a second will be, that there may be a worshipping of 
God before there are worshippers. Now as it is an ac- 
knowledged rule in all controversies that " if an absurd 
consequence be fairly deducible from any doctrine, the 
conclusion to be drawn is, that the doctrine itself is 
false/' therefore, as the consequences, deducible from 
the position that "membership belongs to the form, of 
the Church," are absurdities, the position itself is false ; 
consequently membership does not belong to the form, 



MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 71 

and must therefore belong to the essence of the Church. 

That the consequences, cleducible from the foregoing- 
position are false, is evident from the fact that they 
come in contact with the definition of the word " Church," 
which is "a society of men called out from among other 
men, and set apart for the worship of God." Now if 
the worship of God be the object for which they are 
called out, then worshippers are essentially necessary, as 
worship could not be carried on without them, and these 
worshippers must then be those who are "called out/' 
that is, members of the " society called out from among 
other men and set apart to the worship of God." 
Hence as members are essentially necessary, membership 
must belong to the essence of the Church, inasmuch as 
a " Church" cannot exist without them. It might just 
as rationally be maintained, that there may be a nation 
before there are individuals; a government before there 
are subjects; and a father before there are children, as 
to maintain that there may be a worshipping of God 
before there are worshippers, or a "Church" before 
there are members, — which consequences unavoidably 
follow by ascribing membership to the form of the 
Church, and since the membership of parents belongs to 
the essence of the Church, that of infants must likewise. 

Let us now see what bearing these observations have 
on the right of infants, of believing parents, to baptism. 
We have shewn, 1. That the Christian Church is the 
same in essence as the Jewish; 2. That membership 
does not belong to the form, but to the essence of the 
Church, and the conclusions are as follows : 

1. As membership belonged to the essence of the 



?2 MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 

Jewish Church, or " kingdom of God" under the Jew 
dispensation, then must it also belong to the essence of 
the Christian Church, as the latter is nothing more than 
the kingdom of God taken from the Jews, and given to 
the Gentiles, Mat. 21:43. 

2. As the Christian Church is only the kingdom of 
God transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles; then all 
that is essential to that kingdom, must necessarily be 
transferred with it, otherwise it would not be the one 
taken from the Jews. 

3. The mere transfer of the kingdom, (however much 
its form might thereby be altered,) could in no wise 
destroy its essence, and therefore could not affect the 
right of membership which belongs to the essence. 

4. As infants of believers had a right to membership 
in the Jewish Church, or kingdom of God under the 

Jewish dispensation, which right was of divine institu 
tion, so they must also have a right to membership in 
the Christian Church, or kingdom of God under the 
Gospel dispensation, unless a plain and positive com- 
mand to the contrary can be shown, setting that right 
aside; which, however, cannot be done, and hence the 
conclusion in order is, that as they have a right to mem- 
bership, they must be admitted, and as baptism is the 
initiatory rite, (that is, the rite by which adults are ad- 
mitted into the Church,) consequently, infants must be 
baptised. 

Having thus shewn from the Scriptures that the Chris- 
tian Church is the same in essence as the Jewish, and 
that membership belongs to the essence of a Church, we 
come to consider whether the covenant in the former, is 
the same as it was in the latter. 



QUESTION III. 

Is the Covenant, under the Christian dispensa- 
tion, the same as it was under the Patriarchal 
and Jewish dispensations? 

This question, it will be perceived, is based on the 
objection supposed to be made by those who deny the 
right of infants to membership, on the ground that "the 
covenant made under the Patriarchal, and retained under 
the Jewish dispensation, and wherein infant membership 
was of divine institution, is not the same as that made 
with man under the Christian." If it can be established 
that they are in substance the same, it then follows, that 
all rights and privileges granted to Abraham and his 
seed, are likewise granted to us and our seed, unless a 
divine and express command to the contrary can be shewn. 

The covenant which G od made with Abraham is re- 
corded in Gen. 17:7,8. "And I will establish my 
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, 
in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a 
God unto thee, and thy seed after thee. And I will 
give unto thee and thy seed after thee, the land wherein 
thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- 
lasting possession, and I will be their God." The Bap- 
tists, in order to avoid the difficulty into which they 
would come, by admitting this covenant to contain the 
promise of spiritual blessings, deny that it contains any 
such promise, and maintain that temporal blessings alone 
are contained therein; for, say they, "to the seed of 

6 



74 COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH. 

Abraham Is promised the possession of the land of Canaan, 
great happiness therein, and long life/' &c. 

We very readily grant, that temporal blessings are 
promised unto Abraham and his seed, not only in this, 
but in other places, as a motive to obedience. See Deut. 
4 : 40 ; 7 : 11—15 ; 8 : 6—20. But we deny that these 
alone are promised, and maintain that spiritual blessings 
are also contained in the covenant, and our reasons for 
this position are as follows : 

1. The words "I will be a God unto thee and thy 
seed after thee," contain the promise of every thing that 
may be expected from God, and as both temporal and 
spiritual blessings come from him, the words themselves 
are a promise that God would bestow both on Abraham 
and his seed; for in all things he would be "a God" 
unto him and his seed after him. If it be not admitted 
that such a promise of every thing that may be expected 
from God, is contained therein, then we can see no 
reason whatever in thus addressing Abraham, and the 
expression itself becomes an unmeaning sentence. It 
avails nothing to reply here, that ci this promise 'to be a 
God unto Abraham and his seed/ has reference only to 
temporal blessings, such as are promised in the covenant, 
viz : the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession f 
for this would in effect be saying, that God promised 
and provided for temporal blessings, but made no pro- 
vision for spiritual blessings, which is both unscriptural 
and contrary to the truth. Nor does it avail any thing 
to argue, that, " as there is no mention made of spiritual 
blessings, therefore none can be promised," as this would 
render the expression, " I will be a God unto thee and 
thy seed after thee" altogether inexplicable. For, on 



COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH* 



75 



referring to Gen. 12 : 7, it will be found that the same 
temporal blessings mentioned in Gen. 17 : 7, 8, were 
there promised to Abraham's seed, and in Gen. 15 : 8 — ■ 
18, the covenant containing that promise was ratified or 
confirmed by a sacrifice j but in neither of those two 
places do we find the expression, " I will be a God unto 
thee and thy seed after thee." Hence the promise of 
such temporal blessings, as are mentioned in this cove- 
nant, instead of being an original one, is only a repetition 
of one already made and confirmed to Abraham, and 
only incorporated into it, or made one of its provisions, 
and cannot therefore be included in that expression, 
which is itself a promise, and one, too, of the greatest 
latitude, inasmuch as it contains the promise of every 
thing that may be expected from God, and consequently 
includes spiritual as well as temporal blessings. 

2. Another and stronger proof that spiritual blessings 
were included in the Abrahamic covenant, is contained 
in Gen. 12, where God calls Abraham out of his country, 
from his kindred, and from his father's house, into a 
land that he would shew him. He says unto Abraham, 
"I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless 
thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a 
blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and 
curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the 
families of the earth be blessed." It certainly cannot be 
said, that this promise contains no spiritual blessings ; 
for " in him shall all the families of the earth be blessed." 
Now, it was utterly beyond the power of Abraham to 
bless all the families, or nations of the world, with tem- 
poral blessings, nor was it ever in the power of his 
descendants to do it; for they were a long time in 



76 COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH. 

bondage, and when released from it, they settled in 
Palestine, a country of no great extent, and were culti- 
vators of the ground. And moreover, they were some- 
times carried away into captivity, and although they 
returned again and dwelt in their own country, yet thev 
were finally driven from it by the Romans and scattered 
throughout the world. Now, if the covenant only con- 
tained the promise of temporal blessings, then the prom- 
ise has never been fulfilled ; or if it has, then it must 
mean that the families of the earth should be blessed 
with spiritual blessings; consequently the Christian 
dispensation is no more than a fulfilment of the promise 
contained in the covenant which God made with Abra- 
ham. That it is only a fulfilment thereof is expressly 
asserted by Paul in his discourse to the Jews, as we read 
in Acts 13: 32, 33, "And we declare unto you glad 
tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the 
fathers God h^th. fulfilled the same unto us their chiU 
dren." It being here said to be a fulfilment of that 
promise, proves that the covenant containing the promise 
included all spiritual blessings, such as we now enjoy in 
the Christian Church; consequently, that the covenant 
which God makes with us, is the same as that which he 
made with Abraham ; "for the promise given to Abra- 
ham, that he should be the heir of the world was not 
given to him or his seed, through the law, but through 
the righteousness of faith," Rom. 4 : 13, that is, by 
reason of the faith which he had, and which was imputed 
to him for righteousness, he received the promise that " in 
him all the nations of the earth should be blessed," and 
as we receive all the blessings enjoyed in the Christian 
Church, (which is only a fulfilment of the promise made 



COVENANTS OP THE CHURCH. 77 

to him,) on the same condition, viz : faith, it proves, 
that the covenant is the same as that made with Abraham. 

3. But the New Testament is much more explicit on 
this point, inasmuch as it asserts that it is the same 
covenant. Paul, in Gal. 3 : 8, says, that "the scripture, 
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, 
In thee shall all nations be blessed." In this passage, 
it is said that the Gospel was preached unto Abraham, 
and that which it preached was that " in him all nations 
should be blessed." It is evident, therefore, that Paul 
not only regarded the promise, " In thee shall all nations 
be blessed," as containing the promise of some spiritual 
blessings, but as containing all that are promised to us 
in the gospel ; for he says, " the gospel was preached unto 
Abraham." Now, as the heathen, whom the scriptures 
foresaw God would "justify by faith," are the Gentiles 
who believe in Christ, they are said to be " blessed with 
faithful Abraham," (verse 9,) that is, blessed with the 
same blessings with which he was blessed ; for as the 
gospel, that is, the doctrine of salvation by faith, was 
preached unto him, so it is also preached unto them; as 
he obtained the blessings thereof by faith, so do they ; 
consequently, the covenant made with us is the same as 
that made with him j for the blessing in both is said to 
be justification by faith. 

That both covenants are the same, appears very clearly 
from Gal. 3 : 13, 14, where Paul says, that " Christ 
redeemed us from the curse of the law, by being made a 
curse for us," and the reason which he assigns for it is, 
that " the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gen- 
tiles through him." Turn now to the 17th verse, where 



78 COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH. 

he says, that the giving of the law, which was four 
hundred and thirty years after the making of the 
nant. could not disannul BO u to M make the 
none effect." For the law being given fourteen hundred 
and eighty-one years before the prom be fulfilled, 

it could not possibly disannul the Abrahamic covenant. 
This argument is, we think, absolute and conclusive. 
And if the giving of the law could do* ••disannul" it. 
then the coming or Christ certainly could n 
was only the fulfilment of the promise, that through him 
the Gentiles should obtain rig! faith, even 

as Abraham did. 

It is therefore evident, that the covenant whk ■:. 
makes with us. is the same as that made with Abraham, 
differing only in circumstances; and the question now 
arises, "Who belonged to that covenant, or who were 
taken into it ?" It is said, that i% Abraham and hi 
were taken into it, but infants were rejected." That 
they, however, were taken into the covenant, is evident 
from the fact, that they were circumcised, and circum- 
cision is expressly said to be a " token" of the covenant 
between God and Abraham and his seed. Gen. 17: 11. 
It was, therefore, an external "si ." denoting the ex- 
istence of the covenant, and also a "seal" confirming 
unto those who possessed it, a title to all the blessings 
and privileges contained therein, and was, therefore, 
impressed on all who were considered as included in the 
covenant. Xow. the tact that God enjoins on Abraham 
the circumcision of infants, proves conclusively, that he 
had taken them into covenant with himself; for if not, 
then no reason can be assigned why he commanded that 
they should receive the '•token." nor why the "seal*' 



COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH. 79 

I be impressed upon theni. They had, therefore, 
to be circumcised, because they were included in the 
covenant, and the circumcision of infants we know ex- 
isted at the time of Christ; for he himself was circuni- 
d the eighth day, Luke 2:21. Now, as the 
covenant is the same, and as infants of believing Jews 
were considered as included in the covenant, by virtue of 
their parents' right, and received the ''sign" and "sear' 
of the covenant, so must also infants of believing Gentiles 
be included in the covenant, by virtue of the parents' 
right, and must, therefore, also receive the "sign" and 
"seal" of the covenant, or, in other words, must be 
baptised, and this, 

1. Because Abraham is the father of all that believe^ 
Rom. 4: 11. 

'2. Because the covenant made with him included 
infants, Gen. 17. 

3. Because this covenant was not done away, but only 
confirmed of God, in Christ, Gal. 3 : 17. 

Xow, if God said unto Abraham, " the uncircumcised 
man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, " 
that is, who has not the '-token"' and "seal" of the 
covenant which I make with thee, shall be cut off from 
his people, because he hath broken my covenant, " — 
what conclusion can be drawn respecting unbaptised 
infants, since the covenant made with us is the same as 
that made with Abraham ? Can it be any other than 
this: "Every unbaptized child, who has not been bap- 
tized with water, that is, has not received the " token'' 
and " seal" of the covenant which I made with Abraham, 
.and confirmed in Christ, and now make with you. that 



80 MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 

soul shall be cut off from his people, because he has 
broken my covenant, and has, therefore, no share in the 
promises and blessings contained therein." 



QUESTION IV. 

Is membership the same in the Christian Church 
as it was in the Jewish ? 

The basis of this question, is, the objection that might 
be made against the doctrine of the right of infants of 
believing parents to baptism, on the ground, that 
" membership in the Christian Church, is not the same 
as it was in the Jewish j and that therefore, although 
infants had a right to membership in the latter, } r et they 
have none in the former ; and consequently they must 
not be admitted." 

To give the true answer to the above question, and 
thus obviate the objection, is rendered perfectly easy 
from what has been said on the preceding questions. All 
that is necessary is to collect and arrange the several 
preceding points, in the order in which they stand, and 
deduce the most natural inferences from them. 

I. We inquired in the first place, whether the Chris- 
tian Church, in essence, is the same as the Jewish ? and 
proved it to be so, 

1. By the words of Christ, who expressly says, that 
the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Jews, and 
given to the Gentiles, Mat. 21 : -43. 

2. By the words of PauL who says that the Gentile 



MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 81 

Church is ingrafted into the original Jewish stock, 
giving thereby to understand that the Christian Church 
is, in essence, the same as the Jewish, Rom. 11 : 17 — 24. 

II. We inquired secondly, whether membership be- 
longs to the form, or the essence of the Church ? and 
proved that it belongs to the latter, by shewing that if 
it belonged to the former, then there might be, 

1. An essence, or existence of a Church, before there 
are members. 

2. A worshipping of God, before there are worship- 
pers; which consequences are absurd, and prove that 
membership belongs to the essence of a Church. 

III. Our third inquiry was, whether the covenant 
made with us in Christ, be the same as that made with 
Abraham ? It was shewn to be so, 

1. From the exj>ression "I will be a God unto thee, 
and thy seed after thee/' Gen. 17 : 7; which expression 
is a promise to give unto Abraham and his seed, every 
thing that might be expected from God ; consequently, 
every thing necessary for time and for eternity. 

2. From the fact that God says unto Abraham, "In 
thee shall all nations be blessed," Gen. 12 : 1 — 3, which 
blessings could only be of a spiritual nature. 

3. From the words of Paul, where he says, that "the 
gospel was preached unto Abraham," and that "ail 
those who be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham," 
Gal. 3 : 8, 9; and also that "Christ became a curse for 
us, that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the 
Gentiles," Gal. 3 : 14, and lastly, where he says that God 
"confirmed" the covenant made with Abraham, in 
Christ, verse 17. 



82 MEMBERSHIP OP THE CHURCH. 

Now, in order to ascertain whether membership is the 
same in the Christian Church as it was in the Jewish, 
let us review the foregoing particulars, and, 

1. As the kingdom of God, which is taken from the 
Jews, is given to the Gentiles, and as the Gentiles arc- 
represented as being ingrafted into the Jewish stock, 
then the essence of the Christian Church is the 

that of the Jewish ; for neither the transfer of the king- 
dom, nor the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the Jewish 
stock, conveys the idea of a destruction of essence, but, 
on the contrary, precludes it. 

2. As it necessarily follows by ascribing membership 
to the form of the Church, that the essence thereof may 
remain, although there be no members, and that there 
may be a worshipping of God before there are worship- 
pers, which are absurdities ; it is evident, that member- 
ship does not belong to the form, but to the essence of 
the Church. 

3. As the covenant made with Abraham contains 
spiritual as well as temporal blessings; as in Abraham 
"all the families of the earth are to be blessed j" as justi- 
fication by faith is contained in that covenant; as the 
covenant was confirmed in Christ : then it certainly must 
be the same covenant which God makes with us, inas- 
much as we, "who are of faith/' are called the " children 
of Abraham," and, consequently, partakers of the same 
blessings promised to him and his seed after him. Now, 
since the Christian Church in essence is the same as the 
Jewish ; since membership belongs to the essence of the 
Church ; and since the covenant is the same as that made 
with Abraham; then membership in the Christian 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. ed 

Church must be the same as it was in the Jewish, and 
the conclusion in order is, that as infants of believing 
parents, had a right to membership under the covenant 
made with Abraham, and were received or admitted into 
the Church then, so must infants of believing parents 
ve a tight to membership in the Christian Church, 
under the covenant made with us in Christ, (which is 
but a confirmation of the one made with Abraham.) and 
must therefore also be admitted noic. 



QUESTION V. 

In what manner are individuals to be admitted 
into the. Church ? 

Having shewn, in the discussion of the preceding 
questions, that a Church existed prior to the establish- 
ment of the Christian, which in essence was the same; 
that membership belongs to the essence of the Church; 
that the covenant under the Christian dispensation is the 
same as that under the Jewish ; and that membership 
in the Christian Church is the same as it was in the 
Jewish ; we come now to inquire in what manner indi- 
viduals are to be admitted into the Church, and shall 
shew, fir&t. how they were admitted into the Jewish, 
and secondly, how they are to be admitted irit 
Christian. 

All distinct societies, whose members are elected or 
taken from the common mass, have certain forms, or 
modes of entrance, by which individuals become members. 



84 ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 

In some, membership is obtained by the payment of a 
specified sum of money; in others, by signing their 
names, pledging themselves to observe certain rules and 
regulations; and in others, by submitting to certain 
ceremonies. All these modes of entrance into distinct 
societies, are regarded as initiatory rites, which confer 
upon the individuals who observe them, or rather, sub- 
mit to them, a right and title to the privileges peculiar 
to each society. 

The Church also being a distinct society, composed of 
men " called out" from among other men, for a particular 
purpose, having certain privileges peculiar to it, it fol- 
lows, that there must also be a certain mode of entrance 
into it; a form or ceremony, the performance, or sub- 
mission to, of which confers a right and title to all its 
privileges, and which necessarily excludes from the en- 
joyment thereof, all such as have not, and do not, submit 
to that ceremony. This mode of entrance, whatever its 
form may be, is the initiatory rite, that is, the rite by 
which individuals are admitted into the Church, and 
recognised as members thereof. 

That such a rite existed from the time of Abraham 
down to the time of Christ, and that that rite was cir- 
cumcision, will appear from the consideration of the 
following scripture passages : 

In Gen. 17 : 1 — 14, we fiud that, when God had made 
a covenant with Abraham " and his seed after him in 
their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a 
God unto him, and his seed after him," he also com- 
manded that every man-child among them should be 
circumcised, — " he that was eight dsLjs old, he that was 
born in ihe house, and he that was bought with money 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 85 

of a stranger," and the circumcision of the flesh of their 
foreskin was to be a token or sign of the covenant. All 
those therefore, who were thus circumcised, according 
to the divine injunction, would be considered as being 
in covenant with God, or in other words, as being ad- 
mitted into the society of those who were called out from 
among others, and set apart for the worship of God, with 
whom he hath made a covenant containing the promise 
of temporal and spiritual blessings ; for, as it was the 
token of the covenant, it could only be so called on ac- 
count of its signifying that those who had it, were 
distinct from others, and enjoyed rights and privileges 
from which those who had it not were excluded. As 
uncircumcision excluded others from being taken into 
the covenant, so circumcision must have been that by 
which they were admitted- consequently, it must have 
been the initiatory rite. This will appear more clearly 
from a consideration of the 14th verse, where God says, 
that every man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not 
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people \ 
he hath broken my covenant. Here a neglect or refusal 
to submit to circumcision, deprived even the seed of 
Abraham from enjoying the spiritual blessings and 
privileges contained in the covenant; for this is what 
is meant by the words, "cut off from his people," and 
the reason assigned for such severity towards them is, 
because they have " broken the covenant of God," that 
is, neglected or refused to enter into covenant with him. 
Hence it is evident, that circumcision was an initiatory 
rite by which individuals were admitted into the Church. 
We have also evidence to prove, that circumcision in 
the time of Jacob, was regarded as a rite which intro- 



86 ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 

duced those, on whom it was performed, to a perfect 
equality with those who had received it as a token of the 
covenant. In the 34th chapter of Gen., we read that 
Hamor the Hivite, prince of Shechem, came unto the 
sons of Jacob, to obtain Dinah their sister in marriage 
for his son Shechem. But they answered him and said, 
"We cannot do this thing to give our sister to one that 
is uncircumcised ; for that were a reproach unto us : But 
in this will we consent unto you. If ye will be as we 
be, that every male of you be circumcised, then will we 
give our daughters unto you, and we will take your 
daughters unto us and we will dwell with you, and we 
will become one people." Now, it is evident, that the 
sons of Jacob regarded circumcision as something which 
introduced all those, upon whom it was performed, to a 
perfect equality with themselves; for what other mean- 
ing can the words, " If ye will be as we be that every 
male of you be circumcised," have? It was the only 
condition on which they would consent to give their 
sister unto Shechem, " for to give her unto one who was 
uncircumcised would be a reproach unto them." As 
circumcision was the token of the covenant made between 
God and them, as the seed of x\braham, which covenant 
contained a promise of great blessings and privileges, and 
which exalted them above all other men, they considered 
themselves far superior in point of dignity to all those 
who were not admitted into the covenant, and had not 
its seal ; and to give their sister, who was included in the 
covenant, and also partaker of its blessings, to one who 
was not included therein, and had not the token, would 
be a reproach unto them, inasmuch as it would be a 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 87 

descent on their part from that exalted station, which 
they held by virtue of their circumcision. But as the 
Shechemites, by consenting to be circumcised, would be 
raised from their inferiority and elevated to the same 
station with them, would be as they were, then the sons 
of Jacob could give their daughters unto the Shechemites, 
and take unto themselves their daughters; could dwell 
with them, and become one people, without reproach 
being cast upon them, as the Shechemites, by consenting 
to be circumcised, would be placed on a perfect equality 
with them. That the sons of Jacob thus regarded cir- 
cumcision is evident, and that Hamor and Shechem 
understood the circumcision, proposed to them by the 
sons of Jacob, as a rite, which would introduce them to 
a perfect equality, is evident *also from the 22d and 23d 
verses, where they say unto the Shechemites, "Only 
herein will the men consent unto us, for to dwell with 
us, to become one people ; if every male among us be cir- 
cumcised, as they are circumcised; and shall not their 
cattle and their substance and every beast be ours ? 
Only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell 
with us." It is true, there is no mention made of any 
spiritual privilege which they expected to derive from 
being circumcised, but the reason is, they had no 
knowledge of the existence of the covenant, of which 
circumcision was the token. But still, this does not 
militate against the argument; for, it is still certain, that 
they regarded it as something which would introduce 
them to all the rights and privileges belonging to the 
sons of Jacob, so far as they had, or might have a 
knowledge of the same. They still regarded it as some- 



81 ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 

thing which would place them on a perfect equality with 
them. It is therefore evident, that an initiatory rite 
existed, and that that rite was circumcision, which ad- 
mitted all those who submitted to it, to all the rights 
and privileges enjoyed by those who constituted the 
Church of God, and this was the manner in which indi- 
viduals were admitted into the Jewish Church. For, 
although the Church assumed a different form under the 
Mosaic dispensation, circumcision was not abrogated, but 
re-enacted, and still continued to be the initiatory sign 
and seal of the covenant, until the establishment of the 
Christian Church. 

But when the time arrived in which Christ, as the 
founder thereof, who had been shadowed out by the rites 
of the Jewish temple worship, was to make his appear- 
ance in the world, the whole of the Mosaic ritual, so far 
as it was a typical representation of him, would cease, 
being completed in him, and the Church then would 
undergo a very material alteration in its form. Circum- 
cision, as the token of the covenant containing the 
promise of a blessing to all nations, might also be abro- 
gated, when the time arrived in which that promise 
would be fulfilled, because it belongs to the form, and 
not to the essence of the Church. But its abrogation 
would render the substitution of another token of the 
covenant, another initiatory sign, necessary, if that 
covenant were still to remain in force, and if membership 
were still to be accessible to such as had not yet been 
admitted into it. As the covenant of grace made with 
Abraham still exists, and as membership is still accessi- 
ble to those who have, as yet ; not entered into the 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 89 

covenant, it follows therefore, that there must be a rite 
by which individuals are to be admitted into the Church, 
or society with whom the covenant is made, which rite 
is a token of the covenant, and the initiatory sign, even 
as circumcision was a token of the covenant, and the 
initiatory sign of the Jewish Church, conferring on all 
those, who submited to it, 3 right and title to all the 
blessings and privileges granted therein ; and this rite 
must either be the rite of baptism, or else that of the 
Lord's supper, since there are no other rites in the 
Christian Church. 

That the Lord*s supper is not the initiatory sign of the 
covenant in its present form, is evident; for, like the 
sacrifices of old, it is of regular and habitual observance, 
and is something of which unbaptized persons cannot par- 
take. That it is designed to be of regular and habitual 
observance, is evident from the words of the institution 
itself, • delivered to Paul by the Lord, 1 Cor. 11 : 24, 
"Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: 
this do in remembrance of me," which words plainly 
shew that it is not designed as an initiatory, but as a 
commemorating ordinance, and in verse 25, he says, 
" This cup is the New Testament or covenant in my 
blood • this do, as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of me," 
which manifestly proves it to be of regular and habitual 
observance, and to be thus observed by those only who 
are admitted into the Church, the same as the Passover 
in the Jewish Church, of which the uncircumcised, could 
not partake. 

Baptism, the only remaining rite in the Christian 
Church, must then be the initiatory one by which indi- 

7 



90 ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 

viduals are to be admited, since it is clear that the 
Lord's supper does not perform the office of introducing 
men into the covenant or Church ; for if baptism be not 
that rite, then the Christian Church has no initiatory 
rite, and all mankind may be considered as belonging to 
the Church of Christ; for there will then nothing be 
found to denote that some have been called out from 
among others ; nothing to denote their dedication to God ; 
nothing to denote that some have been brought within 
the pale of the visible Church ; and nothing by which 
some are distinguished from others, and recognised as 
the professed people of God ; or else, the Church has no 
members; for none can be said to have been admitted, 
if there be no initiatory rite : consequently there can be 
no Church; for the idea of a "Church" without members, 
is a perfect contradiction, since a "Church" is "'a society 
of men called out from among other men," and since 
members are essentially necessary to its existence. 

The Church then has an initiatory rite, and that rite 
is baptism; for several passages of scripture, and the 
very nature of the ordinance of baptism, will shew that it 
is to the present covenant what circumcision was to the 
Abrahamic, and that it took its place by the appointment 
of Christ. This may be argued from our Lord's com- 
mission to his apostles, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," 
Mat. 28: 19, 20; and "Go ye into all the world and 
preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved," Mark 16 : 15, 16. But, 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 91 

in order to understand the force of these words of our 
Lord, we must bear in mind, that the gate of the common 
salvation, was only now for the first time to be opened 
to the G-entile nations; for Jesus says, that he was "not 
sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Mat. 
15 : 24, and he had also restricted his disciples from 
teaching the Gentiles, and from entering into any city 
of the Samaritans. But notwithstanding the ministry 
of Jesus and his disciples was confined to the Jews 
during his life time, his doctrine was not always to be 
confined among them ; for he provided for its propagation 
among all nations, by choosing twelve whom he called 
"Apostles," and with the exception of one instance, 
when he sent them out to preach, always kept them near 
his person, that they might become intimately acquainted 
with his character and his doctrine, and be eye-witnesses 
of all his miracles. The special design of all this was, to 
produce in their minds the fullest conviction of his divine 
mission, so that nothing which occurred afterwards might 
shake their faith and withdraw them from his cause. 
And as he had fulfilled the work which his Father had 
given him to do, and was on the point of leaving his 
apostles to return to him, he gave them a commission, 
not only to teach the Jews, but to "go into all the world 
and to teach all nations." But by what means were all 
nations to be brought into the Church of God ? Their 
merely believing the doctrines of the gospel, made known 
unto them by the apostles, could not constitute them 
members of the Church ; for if it did, then all those in 
our day who believe the fundamental truths of the 
Christian religion j who have a theoretical knowledge of 



92 ADMISSION' INTO THE CHURCH. 

the doctrines of the Bible, are members of the Church 
also, although they have never been baptised, and had 
never attached themselves to any Christian denomination; 
which position is manifestly a false one. As their faith 
alone did not constitute them members, there must have 
been some other means by which they were brought into 
the Church, and hence arises the question, by what 
means were all nations to be brought into the Church of 
God, and recognised as his professed people? The 
answer to this question is plain, viz : by baptizing them 
that believed the gospel or good news, and accepted the 
terms of the new covenant. For, baptism always followed 
a profession of faith in Christ by adults, as we see in the 
case of the Eunuch, Acts 8 : 36, 37, and this proves, that 
baptism was the means by which adults were to be ad- 
mitted into the society of those who were the professed 
followers of Christ. It is therefore apparent, from the 
words of the commission itself, that baptism was ex- 
pressly made the initiatory rite by which believers, of 
all nations, were to be introduced into the Church and 
covenant of grace, — an office in which it manifestly took 
the place of circumcision, which heretofore, even from 
the time of Abraham, had been the only initiatory rite 
into the same covenant. 

That Luke, the evangelist, regarded baptism as an 
initiatory rite, appears from his own words in Acts 2 : 
41, where, in speaking of the discourse of Peter, on the 
day of Pentecost, he says, "Then they that gladly 
received his word, were baptized, and the same day there 
were added unto them about three thousand souls." In 
this passage we observe, 1, that of the many whom Peter 
addressed, some gladly received his word, that is, be- 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 93 

lievecl; 2, that they who believed were baptized, and 3, 
that the three thousand who were baptized, were "added" 
unto others. Now, in order to discover who those were 
to whom the three thousand were added, we must have 
recourse to the context. In the first verse it is said, 
" they were all with one accord in one place." Who 
the "all" here mentioned were, is stated in chap. 1 : v. 
15, viz : the disciples or followers of Christ, in number 
one hundred and twenty. Unto these then the three 
thousand were "added," and as the former constituted 
the Church, that is, those called out from among others, 
the words "three thousand were added to them," can 
mean nothing else than that they were admitted into the 
society of the former, consequently into the Church ; for 
that he means this, is evident from the 47th verse of 
chapter 2, where he says, "the Lord added daily to the 
Church such as should be saved." Now, in what manner 
were they added ? Undoubtedly by baptism j for, " they 
that gladly received the word of Peter were baptized" 
and thereby added to those who composed the Church. 
It is therefore evident, that Luke regarded baptism as 
something which introduced men into the Church, conse- 
quently as the initiatory rite. 

A farther proof that baptism has precisely the same 
initiatory character as circumcision, and that it was insti- 
tuted for the same ends, and in its place, is found in Col. 
2: 11, "In whom also ye arc circumcised, with the 
circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." 
The apostle in this passage speaks of "the circumcision 
of Christ," by which phrase he must either mean, 1, the 
personal circumcision of our Lord, or 2, the operation 



94 ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 

of his grace and spirit, or 3, a rite instituted by him in 
the place of the circumcision of Moses. That he cannot 
mean the first, is evident from this, that we should put 
off the body of the sins of the flesh, i. e. become new 
creatures, by virtue of our Lord's personal circumcision, 
which is absurd. That the second is not intended by the 
apostle, is evident from this, that his language would 
then be tautological, which cannot be said of an inspired 
writer; for the '•circumcision made without hands/' 
evidently means the operation of the grace and Spirit of 
Christ on the heart, and if the " circumcision of Christ" 
mean the same thing, then the verse could be read thus, 
"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
made without bauds, in putting off the body of the sins 
of the flesh, by the circumcision made without hands,' 
whereas the " circumcision made without hands," is said 
to consist in li putting off the body of the sins of the 
flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." Since then, neither 
the first, nor the second, of the foregoing interpretations 
will suit the text, the third is the true one, and the 
phrase " circumcision of Christ," means therefore a rite 
instituted by him in place of the circumcision of Moses. 
That this is the import of the phrase, will appear from 
a closer examination. The apostle in this place makes 
use of a figure of rhetoric, called a metonyme, which 
ascribes an effect, produced by a certain cause, to that 
which is its sign • and which often takes the sign, as the 
thing signified, as for example, where our Saviour in the 
institution of the Supper, says, " This is my body — this 
is my blood," which means, " This (bread) presents or 
signifies my body," — this (wine) signifies or represents 
my blood/' So also when the words, u by putting off 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 95 

the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of 
Christ," are divested of their metonymical form, they 
will be read as follows, " putting off the body of the sins 
of the flesh, as signified by the circumcision of Christ," 
and the phrase "circumcision of Christ" then is, a sign 
of something by which the body of the sins of the flesh 
is put off. But we know that circumcision was abolished 
and the phrase therefore must have reference to a rite 
instituted by Christ, since, as we have shewn, the two 
other interpretations will not at all accord with the 
words of the text, and that rite can be no other than 
baptism, and hence, we can discover the reason why the 
apostle calls it the "circumcision of Christ," viz: because 
it has taken the place of the circumcision of Moses, and 
fulfils the same office of introducing believing men into 
the covenant of God, and entitling them to the enjoyment 
of spiritual blessings. The meaning then of the verse, 
when properly expressed, is this, " In whom also ye are 
circumcised, with the circumcision made without hands, 
which consists in putting off the body of the sins of the 
flesh as signified by baptism." It is therefore evident 
that Paul regarded baptism as having the same initiatory 
character ; that it was instituted for the same ends ; and 
that it took the place of circumcision. Baptism then is 
the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant in its present 
form, even as circumcision was that of the Abrahamic. 
It is the only mode of entrance into the Christian Church, 
and all who are admitted must be admitted by baptism ; 
for this is the distinguishing badge or outward mark of the 
Christian religion, in which individuals are dedicated to 
God; brought within the pale of the Church,- and 
recognized as the professed people of God. Infants of 



96 



ADMISSION INTO THE CHURCH. 



believing parents must therefore be admitted into the 
Church by baptism, and this, 

1. Because the Ch aureh is the same in es- 
sence as the Jewish, into which infants of beli, 
parents had to he admitted. 

2. Because membership be) _ -, and 
to the form of the Church. tnembershi 

a <hu -. that of infants mn 

3. because -_ i: . g^e ^ 

le with Abraham, which included infa:. 

4. Because mc in the Christian ChurtL 
same as it was in the Jewish, in wl 

membership. 
•5. Because the Christian Church, like the J 
•vhich those entitled to membership a: 
be admitted. 

6. Because baptism, the initiatory rite of th 
Church, takes the place of circumcision in th. 
by which infants were admit: 

Pi m all these proofs, it is very evider - 
infants may, but that t] and ad- 

ini the 
believing Jews I into the eoyenai.: 

Church by circumcision. 



QUESTION VI. 

If Circumcision in the Jewish, and Baptism in 
the Christian Church, be initiatory rites, do 
they not exclude infants from membership, as 
they both require something of which infants 
are incapable 2 

This question has for its basis the objection of the 
Baptists, who infer from the words of the institution of 
baptism, 

1. That "faith must precede baptism, Mark 16: 15, 
16 j consequently he who does not believe must not be 
baptized." 

2. That "individuals must first be taught, Mat. 28: 
19, 20 j consequently he that is not first taught, must 
not be baptized; therefore, as infants cannot be taught,, 
and as they cannot believe, they must not be baptized." 
But whether these inferences be just, will he shewn in 
the discussion of the question. 

It has already been shewn, that a Church existed prior 
to the establishment of the Christian, composed of those 
who had entered into covenant with God, and who also 
received the rite of circumcision as the token thereof. A 
consent to be circumcised was an acknowledgment on 
their part, to fulfil all the conditions on which the cove- 
nant was made, and circumcision, therefore, obliged 
them to keep the whole law of God. This is expressly 
asserted by Paul in Gal. 5 : 3, where he says, "I testify 
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor 
to do the whole law." Hence it might be inferred that 



y» CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 

none could enter into covenant with God, except such dfl 
were capable of fulfilling all that circimicision required 

of them, consequently infants could not enter into cove- 
nant with him, because of their inability to understand 
the nature and design of circumcision, and to do the 
whole law; or in other words, to perform that which 
circumcision, as the initiatory rite, enjoined upon, or 
required of all those who were admitted. But on looking 
into the institution of circumcision, which God made the 
token of the covenant between him and Abraham and 
his seed, we find that he commands txery man-ckUd 
among them to be circumcised ; " he that was eight days 
old; he that was born in the house, and he that Was 
bought with money of a stranger;" and hence the prin- 
ciple is evolved, that the requirements of God do not 
extend to infants ; consequently the requirements of cir- 
cumcision have reference to adults only, who are capable 
of performing what is required of them : for God does 
not require any thing of his creatures, for the doing of 
which he has not given them power, and the words of 
the institution prove therefore, that infants are capable 
of entering into covenant with God, although they nei- 
ther understand the covenant, nor the nature of its token, 
nor are able to perform what that token as the initiatory 
rite requires of them. For if there be anything in a 
state of infancy, incompatible with Church membership, 
a wise and holy God would certainly never have ordained, 
that "he that is eight days old" should be circumcised, 
and thereby admitted into his Church and covenant. 

That infants are capable of entering into covenant 
with God, is still further evident from Gen. IT : 14, 



CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM 99 

where G-od says, "the un circumcised man-child, whose 
flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be 
cut off from his people, for he hath broken my covenant/'' 
This passage proves something more than a mere capa- 
bility of infants to enter into covenant with God, inas- 
much as a refusal to enter therein, is called a breaking 
of the same. In a covenant of men, no one can be said 
to break it unless he be first admitted into it; but in 
this a refusal or neglect to enter into it, is called a 
breaking of it. This arises from a difference in the 
natures of a covenant between man and man, and God 
and man. In the former the parties antecedently to the 
transaction, are laid under no obligations to one another, 
and their obligation to perform the conditions or stipu- 
lations arises from the engagement itself. If both parties 
do not engage, the covenant can have no existence. By 
both parties also it must be sealed, and a seal set to it by 
one of them only stands for nothing. But in a covenant 
between God and man, the covenant is proposed to us 
as a lav:, and our obligations to conform, arise solely 
from the command of God, and are absolutely binding 
on us, whether we consent or not ; hence a refusal or 
neglect to be circumcised was a breaking of the covenant 
proposed as a law, viz: " every man-child among you 
shall be circumcised/' Hence it is not only evident that 
infants were capable of entering into covenant with God, 
but also that it was their parents' duty to see that they 
received the sign and the seal of that covenant, into which 
they had to enter; and he who did not enter therein, 
was regarded as one who had agreed to perform the con- 
ditions or stipulations, but afterwards refused, and 



100 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 

thereby broke the covenant; and that soul was therefore 
to be cut off from his people, that is. deprived of the 
blessings and privileges arising from the covenant. 

That infants are capable of entering into covenant 
with God is also proved by the passage in Deut. 29 : 10 
— 16, if Ye stand this day all of you, before the Lord 
your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders, and 
your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, 
your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from 
the hewer of thy wood, to the drawer of thy water, that 
thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, 
and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with 
thee this day : that he may establish thee to-day for a 
people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a 
God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn 
unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Neither 
with you only do I make this covenant and this oath, 
but with him that standeth here with us this day before 
the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here 
with us this da} T ." Here the "little ones" are said to 
stand before God with the rest of the Israelites, to enter 
into the covenant which he made with the generation 
then present, and with those which were yet to come, 
and this certainly proves that little ones, or infants are 
capable of entering into covenant with God ; for surely 
he would not have entered into covenant with them if 
they had not been capable of it. It is therefore clear 
from these passages, 

1. That infants are capable of entering into covenant 
with God. 

2. That they actually were taken into covenant with 
him. 



CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 101 

3. That it was their parents' duty to place them into 
covenant with him ; and hence it is also clear that the 
requirements of circumcision, as the initiatory rite, did 
not exclude them from being admitted; and that these 
requirements have reference to adults only. 

Our next inquiry is, whether the same particulars can 
be affirmed of baptism. 

It might very justly be inferred from what has been 
said on the preceding questions, that the qualifications 
for baptism, mentioned in the New Testament, have 
no reference to infants, as the Jewish and Christian 
Churches are the same in essence ; as membership belongs 
to the essence ; as the covenant is the same j as member- 
ship is the same j and as baptism takes the place of cir- 
cumcision whose requirements did not exclude infants 
from entering into covenant with God. But we do not 
rely only on these to prove the point in question, as 
scripture testimony can be produced on the subject. 

We have already said, that the Baptists' objection to 
infant baptism is founded on the words of the institution) 
Mark 16 : 15, 16, and Mat. 28 : 19, 20, from which they 
contend, that individuals must first be instructed and 
believe before they can be baptized, and as infants are 
incapable of so doing, they must therefore not be baptized. 

We maintain, as firmly as the Baptists do, 

1. That adults must be baptized. 

2. That baptism to adults must be confined to those 
who believe. 

3. That children of unbelieving parents must not be 
baptized. But we maintain also, 

4. That the children of believing parents have a right 



102 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 

to, and must be baptized. To this the Baptist objects 
and says, that " according to the words of the institution 
of baptism in Mat. 28: 19, 20, and Mark 10: 15, 16, 
individuals must first be instructed and believe before 
they can be baptized, and as infants are incapable of this, 
consequently they must not be baptized." But the 
question arises here, Do these passages only speak of 
infants, or of adults j or of both 1 If they have refer- 
ence to infants only, then all who die in their infancy 
are lost; for if none are to be baptized who do not believe, 
then none can be saved who do not believe ; for " he that 
believeth not shall be damned/'* If they have reference 
to adults only who are capable of being instructed and 
of believing, then they cannot at all be brought to bear 
against the baptism of infants, inasmuch as they have 
no reference to them; and if they speak with reference 
to adults and infants, then unbelieving adults, and also 
all who die in infancy, are lost; for " he that believeth 
not shall be damned." Yet the Baptists themselves will 
not admit the truth of the position, that all those who 
die in their infancy are lost, and indeed it is an unrea- 
sonable and unscriptural one. But it is nevertheless a 
consequence which is fairly deducible from the position, 
that none can be baptized without faith ; nay more, it is 
the unavoidable conclusion to which we must come; for 
just as certain as it is that none shall be baptized before 
they believe, because faith precedes baptism, just so 
certain is it that those who do not believe shall be 
damned, for not believing precedes damnation. Now, as 
every argument which proves against an evident truth, 
or which supports a falsehood, is unsound; so the argu- 



CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 103 

merit, that none can be admitted to baptism who do not 
believe, is also unsound ; for it proves against the salva- 
tion of infants, which is an evident truth. Hence the 
words of the institution in Mark 16 : 15, 16, either have 
no reference to children, or else scripture contains a flat 
contradiction j either the one or the other of these con- 
clusions must be taken, as a third is not possible, and as 
the latter is a blasphemous one, because it would be 
charging the Spirit of truth with falsehood, the former 
must be true. The passage, then, has no reference to 
children; does not speak of them, and consequently 
cannot be brought to prove that infants are to be excluded, 
from being admitted into the Church, on account of their 
ignorance and want of faith, inseparable from a state of 
infancy. 

Let us now take another view of the passage in Mark 
16 : 15, 16. It is said, " he that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved," and from this it is argued that " faith 
is always a prerequisite to baptism," and that "none 
can be baptized without it, consequently, as infants 
cannot believe, they must not be baptized." But it is 
also said, " he that believeth not shall be damned/' 
consequently, as infants cannot believe, they are damned; 
which conclusion, although as strictly logical as that of 
the Baptists, that they shall not be baptized, is not ad- 
mitted by them; for they maintain that those dying in 
infancy are saved without faith, although it is positively 
declared that " he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Now, it is self evident, that if the first clause of the 16th 
verse has reference to infants, the latter also must have 
reference to them ; for the gospel was to be preached 



I 04 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 

" unto every creature/' that is, to the whole human 
family, which our Saviour divides into two classes, viz : 
those who believe, and those who do not believe ; and as 
infants are included in the human family, they must 
belong either to the one or the other of the classes. If 
they belong to the believing part, then they must be 
baptized, and will be saved ; if to the other part, then 
they will be damned. There can be no alternative, if 
the passage has reference to infants. But as scripture 
gives us to understand that infants will be saved, the 
principle is therefore evolved, that the requirements of 
God do not extend to infants* and this, because they 
can neither understand nor fulfil them, as they stand in 
need of the power so to do. This principle is acknowl- 
edged in the Old Testament, where we find that infants, 
although they did not understand circumcision, and 
although it required the observance of the whole law, 
still, notwithstanding their inability to understand, and 
and to perform, were actually circumcised, and that, too, 
because it was divinely commanded, which undoubtedly 
proves the truth of the above principle: consequently, the 
passage in Mark has no reference at all to infants, but 
speaks of adults, and as we maintain, as firmly as the 
Baptists do, that faith must precede their baptism, it 
cannot therefore be brought forward as a valid argument 
against infant baptism. 

This passage, as well as all others in which faith and 

* When we say " the requirements of God do not extend to 
infants," we must by no means be understood as meaning, that 
they must not be baptized, because they cannot themselves 
apply to the Church for baptism. The objection is not because 
they cannot come, but because they cannot " repent and believe" 
which are said to be the necessary qualifications for baptism. 



CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 105 

repentance are spoken of as pre-requisites, and which are 
usually brought forward by the impugners of infant 
baptism as valid proofs against it, are all overturned by 
the principle, that "the requirements of God do not 
extend to infants;" a principle founded in reason and 
scripture, and recognized by Christ in the institution of 
baptism ; and thus ail their strong props, on which they 
had erected such a stately edifice of objections, scoffs 
and sneers, against infant baptism, are wrested from 
them, and the whole superstructure, joined together by 
false interpretations, fallacious reasoning, and erroneous 
conclusions, and occasionally decorated with a sneer and 
a scoff, by way of ornament, at once tumbles to the 
ground. 

Thus we have, in the course of the preceding argu- 
ment, shewn, 

1. That infants are capable of entering into covenant 
with Grod. 

2. That they actually were taken by him into cove- 
nant with himself. 

3. That, notwithstanding their incapability to under- 
stand and perform what circumcision required, viz : " to 
do the whole law," they still had to be admitted, and 
this too because it was commanded, which proves the 
truth of the principle, that the requirements of G-od do 
not extend to infants. It was also shewn, that this 
principle is recognized by Christ in the institution of 
baptism, and it, therefore, proves that, when faith and 
repentance are spoken of as being necessary qualifications 
for baptism, the passages have no reference at all to 
infants. And how must now the language of those be 

8 



106 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 

regarded who deny the capability of infants to enter into 
covenant with God, on the ground, that they are unable 
to understand and fulfil the requirements of the initiatory 
rite, when God says, notwithstanding this, they must lie 
admitted, as his requirements do not extend to them, and 
when Christ recognizes the same principle in the institu- 
tion of baptism ? Is it not frail and erring reason, (if 
indeed it can be called reason,) setting itself up in oppo- 
sition to Infinite Wisdom ? by asserting that infants are 
incapable of entering into covenant with God, when he 
says they shall be admitted. And to regard infant bap- 
tism, which admits to membership in the Church of 
Christ, as a " most ridiculous thing," what is it in effect 
else than a charging Infinite Wisdom with having insti- 
tuted something "ridiculous" in his Church? for God 
instituted membership of infants among the Jews. Just 
as " ridiculous" as infant membership would be under 
the Christian dispensation, just so ridiculous it was under 
the Jewish; and just as "ridiculous" as infant baptism 
is, just so "ridiculous" was infant circumcision j for the 
former involves the same principle, has been instituted 
on the same ground, takes the place of circumcision, and 
fulfils the same office, namely, introducing individuals 
into the Church and covenant of grace. 

We are confident, that, not only the Baptists, but mem- 
bers of all denominations, hold doctrines which are not 
supported by half the evidence which has been given in 
favor of the right of infants of believing parents, to 
baptism, and yet these doctrines are held as orthodox, and 
he is branded as a heretic, who departs from them, while 
the doctrine of infant baptism, which has all the foregoing 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 107 

evidence, and more which shall be given, in its favor, is 
regarded by some as "a most ridiculous thing;" "for," 
say they, " we can see nothing in its favor." But if the 
light, which will necessarily flow in upon us while 
searching after truth, (if our minds be unbiassed by a 
favorite party notion or prejudice,) cannot be seen, it 
must be attributed to blindness. But is it natural, or is 
it wilful, blindness ? If the former, then it is excusable ; 
for a natural defect cannot be chargeable upon us ; but 
if it be wilful, then it is unpardonable; for it never can 
excuse ignorance of that with which we might have made 
ourselves acquainted. Let, therefore, the impugners of 
infant baptism once remove the scales of prejudice, and 
film of party notion from the eye of their intellect, and 
let them then look on infant baptism, and see whether it 
be "a most ridiculous thing," and whether its defenders 
are to be ranked with " blind and prejudiced bigots." 



QUESTION VII. 

If the pre-requisites of the initiatory rites do not 
exclude infants from membership, what argu- 
ments, beside those already advanced, can be 
produced to prove not only that they may, but 
that they must be admitted into the Church by 
baptism ? 

If the foregoing arguments be not sufficient to establish 
the doctrine of infant baptism, they afford, to say the 
least of them, much more and stronger evidence in its 
favor, than the Baptists are able to produce against it. 
And if positive certainty on the subject be not attainable, 



108 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

reason and common sense, teach us to adopt that opinion 
which has the most and strongest evidences in its favor, 
as it lies much nearer the truth. Having then at least 
this advantage over the Baptists, that our opinion is 
much more probable than theirs, let us add thereto the 
following arguments, which, if they, in connexion with 
the rest, do not prove the certainty, will, at least, greatly 
increase the probability ; for it would seem, according to 
the Baptists' view, that certainty is unattainable, as 
" Christ has no where commanded that infants should be 
baptized.' ' 

It is the belief of many, that, because there is no ex- 
press command that infants shall be baptized, infant 
baptism must therefore be wrong. This belief, however, 
is erroneous; for there are many duties incumbent on us, 
which are not expressly commanded or declared in Scrip- 
ture, but which we learn only by analogy, inference, or 
implication. If the contrary be true, then women 
are not to come to the Lord's supper j are not to pray 
in their families; nor is the Christian Sabbath to be 
observed, as there is no express command for any of these, 
and yet the Baptists glory in the thought of having 
defeated and put us to rout, by objecting, that " Christ 
has no where commanded infant baptism." But to this 
we would answer : 

1. That he has no ichere forbidden it, which is a 
sufficient answer to the objection ; and then in order to 
discover whether infant baptism be right or wrong, we 
must have recourse to analogy, to inference, and to impli- 
cation, as no ezcpress command can be shewn on either 
side of the question. If the Baptists' inference, that 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 109 

" because there is no express command, therefore infants 
must not be baptized/' be a good one; our inference, 
that, " because there is no express prohibition, therefore 
they must be baptized, is a much better one ; for it not 
only rests on the absence of an express prohibition, like 
that of the Baptists, which rests on the absence of an 
express command, but it also has in its favor the analogy 
of the Jewish Church, in which infant membership ex- 
isted, and which, it cannot be shewn, was ever set aside ; 
therefore it is a much stronger inference than that of the 
Baptists, which rests only on the absence of an express 
command. As infant membership was instituted by an 
express command of God, it requires, therefore, an 
express 'prohibition from him to set it aside. As no 
prohibition to this effect can be produced ; and as the 
Christian Church is in essence the same as the Jewish ; 
and as membership belongs to the essence ; the member- 
ship of infants is therefore continued; consequently, 
they must be admitted into the Church, and, as baptism 
is the initiatory rite, they must therefore be baptized. 

" But/' says one, " the Baptists do not infer only from 
the absence of an express command, that infant baptism is 
wrong ; they infer it also from other passages of Scripture. 
It is evident from the words of the institution, and also 
from other passages, that faith precedes baptism, therefore, 
as infants cannot believe, they must not be baptized." This 
is very true. They " infer" it from " other passages of 
Scripture;" but, strange to tell, from " passages" which 
have no reference at all to the subject, and the very fact 
that they infer it from such passages, proves not only 
that their position is unwarranted by Scripture, but also 



110 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

that they do not hesitate to subject a plain passage of 
Scripture to an unnatural process of interpretation, in 
order to maintain a party notion ; for if the doctrine 
which they maintain, be a scriptural one, then certainly 
there are texts to be found, which have a more immedi- 
ate reference to the subject. That their interpretation 
of Mat. 28 : 19, 20, and Mark 16: 15, 16, and others, 
where faith precedes baptism, is an unnatural and forced 
one, is evident, 

1. From the fact that they do not speak of infants, but 
of adults ; for if otherwise, then this principle is estab- 
lished, viz : that Grod requires things of his creatures 
which they have not the power to perform, and it then 
follows, that as "he that believeth not, shall be damned/' 
infants being incapable of believing, " shall be damned," 
and that too because they failed in doing something, for 
the performance of which he had as yet not given them 
the necessary power ! 

2. It is forced and unnatural from the fact, that adults 
are placed in the premises and infants in the conclusion, 
which is utterly repugnant to the laws of sound reasoning. 

In order that we may better understand the force of 
the argument contained in the words " Christ nowhere 
forbids infants being baptized," we must transport our- 
selves back to the commencement of the Christian Church. 
We know, that infants of believing parents were admitted 
into the Jewish Church, by the same rite by which 
adults were admitted, viz : by circumcision. We know 
also, that this custom prevailed in the time of Christ, 
and had been practised for ages past. We know also 
that Gentiles, who became converts to the Jewish re- 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. Ill 

ligion, together with their children, were also admitted 
bv circumcision; and the apostles had been educated in 
the belief that children of believing parents had to be 
admitted, and in support of this belief they had a custom 
founded on a divine command, and which had been 
observed for two thousand years. When the apostles, 
therefore, were sent out into all the world to bring those 
of all nations into the Church, what might naturally be 
expected ? Would it not be expected, 

1. That, as the apostles were Jews, they would con- 
form to Jewish customs in the reception of members into 
the Church? 

2. That, if Christ would not have believing parents 
with their children admitted into his Church, he would 
have expressly forbidden it ; because the apostles were 
very much attached to Jewish customs, as may be seen 
from their whole history, and because he instituted a 
new rite by which they were to be admitted ? This 
silence of Jesus, therefore, so far from being against 
infant baptism, is evidently in its favor : for, as we have 
nothing in the New Testament, to shew that Christ 
made any alterations respecting the right of infants to 
membership, which was of divine appointment, we natu- 
rally conclude that the apostles would receive believers 
and their children into the Church, as they had been 
accustomed to see it done in the Jewish Church. And 
further, a very plausible reason can be given why there 
is no express command that infants should be admitted 
into the Church by baptism. As the laws and institu- 
tions, rights and privileges of the Jewish Church were 
of divine appointment, they could not be discontinued 



112 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

nor set aside until formally abrogated, nor could the 
abrogation of some, release men from the obligation of 
obeying and observing the rest, or deprive them of the 
rites and privileges granted to them. If a part thereof 
be abolished, the rest must be considered as still re- 
maining in force, although not a word be said about 
them. This we find to be the case even in human 
governments. One legislature enacts sundry laws com- 
manding certain things to be done, and grants certain 
privileges unto the citizens; another that succeeds it 
strikes out or amends several of these laws, and says 
nothing concerning the rest, nor concerning the privileges 
granted; but this very silence of theirs, so far from 
proving that the other laws and privileges are done away, 
is a certain proof that they are to be continued, and that 
these legislators regard them as binding, as if thev them- 
selves had enacted and granted them. They merely 
strike out whatever is no longer necessary, and, if requi- 
site, enact other laws and grant other privileges. Thus 
also did Christ. He struck off from the Jewish code 
the political and ceremonial parts, which were a typical 
representation of him, and instituted a new sign and seal 
of the covenant made with them, in place of the old one. 
But this does not prove, that he, who had a right to 
receive the old sign and have the old seal impressed upon 
him, no longer possessed that rite; an Y more than the 
adoption of a new county, or state seal, proves that 
some records to which the old seal of the county or state 
had to be affixed, are not to have the new seal affixed to 
them. The very fact, therefore, that Jesus does not sav 
who is to receive the new sign and have the new seal 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 113 

impressed upon hirn, is a proof that he intended it to be 
given to, and impressed upon, all those to whom the old 
sign was to be given, and the old seal impressed. Nor 
does the objection, that some are incapable of fulfilling 
the requirements of the new seal, prove that it must not 
be impressed upon them ; for the old seal also had re- 
quirements which some were incapable of fulfilling, and 
yet it had to be impressed upon them. Hence, we find 
no command to baptize infants, and the reasons given, 
shew us why, viz : because it was not necessary. Infant 
membership was to continue in the Christian Church, as 
it had been in the Jewish. This argument, drawn from 
the silence of Jesus on the subject of infant baptism, is 
one of considerable weight to prove, that infants must 
be baptized. But there can another be shewn, which is 
more weighty; for 

2. Christ speaks of infants as belonging to the u king- 
dom of God," by saying that " of such it is." It appears 
from Mark 10: 13-16, that " young children were brought 
unto Jesus that he should touch them," or, as Matthew 
says, chap. 19 : 13, " put his hands on them and pray j w 
but the disciples rebuked those that brought them. That 
these " young children" were infants, in the proper sense 
of the word, is evident; for they were brought unto 
Jesus, and "he took them up in his arms;" and it is 
moreover, expressly asserted by Luke, chap. 18, 15th 
verse. The reason why the disciples rebuked those that 
brought them, was, either because they regarded infants 
as too insignificant to claim or demand the attention of 
Jesus ; or, because they did not regard them as belonging 
to the kingdom of G-od. But whatever their reasons 
were, the conduct of Jesus shews that they were wrong. 



114 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

in forbidding not only the coming of little children to 
him, but also their being brought to him : for he was 
displeased, and "much displeased" at what the disciples 
had done, and said unto them, u suffer little children to 
come unto me and forbid them not." Some, perhaps, 
from these words, would infer, that Jesus does not speak 
of infants properly so called, but of such as have arrived 
at the age of maturity. This inference, however, is not 
just. These little children were brought to him, and a 
rebuking of "those that brought them," is regarded by 
him as a rebuking of the children themselves for coming 
unto him; and their being "'brought," as a coming of 
themselves unto him. Hence its meaning is, "suffer or 
permit little children to be brought unto me, and forbid 
not their being brought;" for the disciples did not 
"rebuke" or "forbid'' the children, but only those that 
brought them ; and at this Jesus was much displeased 
and reproves them, by telling them, that they should 
suffer them to be brought unto him; giving as a reason 
why, that " of such is the kingdom of God." Here, 
then, infants are recognised as belonging to the " kingdom 
of God." But in what sense are we to understand the 
phrase ? Does it mean the Church on earth, or the 
Church in Heaven ? for it has both significations in the 
New Testament. If it here mean the Church on earth, 
then they must be admitted; "for of such is the king- 
dom of God," or Church ; but as they cannot be admitted 
without baptism, they must therefore be baptized. If 
it means the kingdom of glory above, then Jesus here 
acknowledges their right to that kingdom by saying " of 
such it is," and then they also belong to the kingdom of 
God, or Church, on earth, which is the one preparatory 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 115 

to that above, consequently they must be admitted, and 
it is, therefore, no discretionary thing with us to baptize, 
or not baptize them, — they must be baptized. Again, 
if they can be saved without faith, which the Scriptures 
expressly require, by saying, that "he that believeth 
not, shall be damned;" they can also be baptized without 
faith. For surely, there is not so much violence done 
to the word of God by those who maintain the doctrine 
of infant baptism, when the scriptures nowhere ex- 
pressly forbids it, and when so many scriptural arguments 
are in its favor; as there is violence done to it by those 
who reject the doctrine, and who, in defiance of the 
express and positive declaration of our Saviour, that "he 
that believeth not shall be damned/' still maintain the 
salvation of infants. In whatever sense, therefore, we 
take the phrase " kingdom of God/' the result is the 
same. If it mean the Church on earth, then they must 
be admitted; for "of such it is;" and as they cannot 
be admitted but by baptism, they must be baptized. If 
it mean the Church triumphant, or kingdom of glory 
above, then they also belong to the Church militant ; for 
the former is composed of those who in all ages have 
belonged to the latter, and they must, therefore, be ad- 
mitted ; but as they cannot be admitted without baptism, 
they must be baptized. 

If it be objected, that " they do not understand what 
baptism is, therefore they must not be baptized," then, 
as infants in the Old Testament did not understand 
circumcision, therefore, they ought not to have been 
circumcised; — which conclusion lies directly against the 
command of God. Again, if it be objected that " faith 
and repentance precede baptism, and as infants are inca- 
pable of these, therefore they must not be baptized," 



116 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

then as circumcision required the observance of the whole 
law, and as infants were incapable of keeping it, therefore 
they ought not to have been circumcised, — which conclu- 
sion also lies directly against the command of God ; for 
circumcision on the eighth day was of divine institution. 
Again, if it be objected that "as infants cannot believe, 
therefore they must not be baptized;" then as infants 
cannot believe, they cannot be saved: for "he that 
believeth not, shall be damned," — which conclusion, 
concerning infants, lies directly against the words of our 
Saviour, who says, "of such is the kingdom of God." 
A third argument in favor of the right of infants of 
believing parents to baptism, is the fact, that there is a 
marked distinction made in the New Testament between 
the children of believing, and those of unbelieving parents. 
The apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 7 : 14, says, " the unbelieving 
husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving 
wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children 
unclean, but now are they holy" In this chapter, the 
apostle speaks of a condition of the Church arising from 
circumstances. In his day, when the gospel was fast 
spreading among all nations, it often happened that a 
man, who had an unbelieving or idolatrous wife, and a 
woman who had an unbelieving or idolatrous husband, 
became converted to the Christian religion. This, then, 
gave rise in the Church, to the question, Whether it 
were lawful for them to dwell together in matrimony ? 
Paul answers in . the affirmative, and declares, that in 
such cases, they can live together in matrimony, and 
assigns as his reason for so doing, that the unbelieving 
husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbe- 
lieving wife by the believing husband, and in order to 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 117 

prove this refers them to the case of their children, who 
would be " unclean/' unless such a relative sanctification 
did exist j for he says " else they would be unclean, but 
now are they holy." We must now ascertain the mean- 
ing of the terms "unclean" and "holy." 

Paul, we know, was a Jew, and as such, would, when 
speaking of the Church, or of religious matters, always 
make use of such terms as he had been accustomed to, 
and here he makes use of the terms " unclean" and 
" holy," which were in familiar use among the Jews. 
By the former, they meant such persons or things as 
were unfit to be admitted to God's ordinances. This 
appears from Leviticus, chapters 10, 11, and 13. Hence 
when Paul speaks of "unclean" children, he means such 
as cannot be admitted to the ordinances of God, and the 
fact, that he says the children of even one believing 
parent are not unclean, proves that they may be admit- 
ted to the ordinances, that is, consecrated to the service 
of God. But this passage proves more than that they 
merely may be admitted; for it asserts that they are 
"holy" That the word "holy," means that which is 
consecrated and set apart to the service of God, or which 
is admitted to the ordinances of God, is evident from 
this, that it is placed in opposition to " unclean." The 
rule of antithesis, which must here be adopted, is, that, 
" in antithetical propositions, it is only necessary to find 
the meaning of one word or member of a sentence, as 
the meaning of the other must be its opposite;" hence, 
as "unclean" means that which is unfit to be admitted 
to the ordinances of God, "clean" would therefore mean 
that which may he admitted, and " holy" that which 
actually is admitted; and the fact, that the apostle 



118 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

says their children u are holy," proves that they actually 
had been admitted to the ordinances, or in other words, 
admitted into the Church. This passage, therefore ; proves 
not only that infants may be admitted into the society 
of those who are " called out" from among others, and 
set apart for the service of God ; but also, that they 
actually were admitted into the Church in the days of 
the apostles ; for he gives as a reason why those who had 
unbelieving wives or unbelieving husbands, should not 
separate themselves, that the unbelieving parent was 
sanctified by the believing one, and to prove this, he 
says, that their children are not only fit to be admitted 
unto God's ordinances, but that they are "holy, that is, 
actually are admitted, and if they were admitted, it 
could only have been by baptism, consequently, infants 
were baptized in the days of the apostles. 

I am aware that the words " unclean" and " holy," 
are interpreted differently from the manner in which I 
have interpreted them. Some take the words as mean- 
ing illegitimate and legitimate, reading the sentence thus, 
" else were your children illegitimate, that is, unlawfully 
begotten, but now are they legitimate, that is, lawfully 
begotten." This interpretation, however, does not, to 
me, appear to be the true one, and this for the following 
reasons : 

1. The words "unclean" and "holy" are never used 
in scripture to denote the illegitimacy and legitimacy of 
a thing, and the interpretation is, therefore, contrary to 
the usus loquendi of the scriptures. 

2. The sanctification spoken of means something more 
than merely legalizing their marriage, so that their 
offspring are not illegitimate, but legitimate ) for their 



MISCELLANEOUS ARG 119 

marriage could have been legal, and their children law- 
fully begotten without either of the parents being 
believers, consequently withont any such sanctincation as 
the apostle speaks of, and to which the holiness of the 
children is ascribed. 

Admitting, however, that the words "unclean" and 
"holy" mean illegitimate and legitimate, the argument 
ill the same. " Unclean" children would mean such 
as are unlawfully begotten, and these we are informed 
in Dent, l : : _ : uld not be admitted into the congre- 
gation or Jewish Church. When the apostle, therefore, 
says, they are not unclean, his meaning must be, that 
they are not illegitimate, that they may be admitted into 
the Church, from which all children unlawfully begotten 
were to be excluded ; andwhentT ?y are holy," 

he must mean that they actually were admitted; for the 
term u holy" was applied both to persons and things that 
were dedicated to God. and set apart for his service ; nay, 
the apostle appeals to the feet of their children being 

husband by the believing wife, and of the unbelieving 
wife by the believing husband, giving the Corinthians 
thereby to understand, that the Church regarded their 
marriage as legal, and their offspring as legitimate, from 
the feet that hitherto the children of such as had unbe- 
lieving husbands or unbelieving wives had been admitted 
into the Church, which could not have been done, if such 
a sanctincation did not exist ; and if th:y were admitted, 
it must have been by baptism; for without it none could 
be admitted, consequently infants were baptized in the 

This conclusion is greatly strengthened by the prece- 
ding arguments, viz : 



120 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

1. That Christ nowhere forbids infant membership 
which existed in his day. 

2. That, on the contrary, he recognises them as belong- 
ing to the kingdom of God, which implies an admission 
into that kingdom. 

3. That Paul expressly calls the children of believing 
parents "holy," that is, consecrated, or set apart to the 
service of G-od, or dedicated to him. As there must then 
have been a mode of admission into the kingdom, and a 
mode of consecration or dedication to God, that mode 
could only have been baptism ; for circumcision was 
done away; consequently, infants of believing parents 
were baptized in the days of the apostles, and must now 
also be baptized. 

4. A fourth argument in favor of the right of infants 
to Church membership, and, consequently, to baptism, 
is drawn from the fact, that there is no mention made 
in the New Testament of any controversy respecting it. 

This argument based on the absence of all controversy 
concerning the right of infants to Church membership, 
and consequently to baptism, may appear to many as of 
little force ; but from the nature of the case, it will be 
found to be one of considerable weight. It certainly 
cannot be expected, that the Jews, who had been accus- 
tomed to see their children admitted to Church member- 
ship, and which they knew to be of divine origin, would 
lay their hands upon their mouths, and remain silent on 
seeing this rite totally set aside, and their children 
excluded from the Church. We know that the)- were 
ardently attached to their customs, so much so, that the 
least deviation from them created a controversy. Of 
this we have an instance recorded in Mark 7 : 1 — 5, 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 12t 

where the Pharisees and Scribes, finding fault with the 
disciples of Jesus for eating bread "with unwashen 
hands," come unto him and say ; " Why walk not thy 
disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat 
bread with unwashen hands." Now, it cannot, from 
the nature of the case, be expected, that the Jews, and 
least of all, the Pharisees and Scribes, who did not 
remain silent on this occasion, would remain silent when 
the right of infants to Church membership would be set 
aside by Christ or his disciples; nor can it reasonably 
be expected that the evangelists would omit noticing 
their opposition to setting it aside, when one of them 
notices their opposition to the violation of a custom 
founded on mere tradition of the elders. If the violation 
of such a custom, which was but " the commandment of 
men," was found fault with, it certainly cannot be ex- 
pected that the total setting aside of a privilege founded 
on divine authority, or rather the setting aside of an 
express command of G-od to admit infants into the Church, 
should or could have been passed over in silence without 
eliciting so much as a single remark from friend or foe, 
and it is the less to be expected, as it would deprive 
infants of a privilege which for ages had been granted to 
them, and which distinguished them from all other 
infants, and, at the same time, would furnish the ene- 
mies of the Christian religion with an excellent argument 
against its divine origin, viz : that it sets aside an ordi- 
nance of G-od without so much as substituting any thing 
in its place. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the 
Jews would remain silent, since they objected to the 
eating of bread with unwashen hands, and it is equally 
improbable, that, had there been any controversy, the 

9 



122 Miscellaneous arguments. 

evangelist would fail noticing it, since he notices the 
objection to eating bread with unwashen hands, and then, 
as there is no mention made of any controversy, the 
probability is there never was any, and the conclusion 
is, that membership of infants continued the same as 
before, and infants were still admitted into the Church. 

This silence of the four evangelists on the subject of 
infant membership is a strong presumptive proof, that 
no controversy ever arose among the Jews, on this point, 
during the ministry of Jesus, and that infant membership, 
therefore continued to be the same as it was before. If 
it ever was set aside, it must have been by the apostles 
after His ascension into heaven, when those of "all 
nations" were to be brought into the Church. 

In looking into the history of the apostles, commen- 
cing with the ascension of Jesus, and ending with the 
first imprisonment of Paul about the year 65, we find the 
following account in the 15th chapter of Acts. After 
Paul had planted a church in Antioch, certain men came 
down from Judea, and taught the brethren, saying, that 
" except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses 
ye cannot be saved." Paul and Barnabas had no small 
dissension and disputation with them concerning it. So 
unwilling were they to give up the idea of circumcision 
being necessary, that it was determined to send Paul and 
Barnabas, and certain others of them, to Jerusalem, to 
the apostles and elders, about this question, and even 
here certain of the Pharisees which believed, said, "that 
it was needful to circumcise them, viz : the Gentiles, and 
to command them to keep the law of Moses," — where- 
upon the apostles and elders came together to consider 
the matter, when again there was "much disputing." 



MISCELLANEOUS AROUMEiVTS. 123 

Here, then, we find a dissension about circumcision, just 
at the very time when it might have been expected, viz : 
when the Gentiles were admitted into the Church ; and 
we find, too, that Luke is very circumstantial in his 
details. This was also the time in which infant mem- 
bership would be set aside, and in which a controversy 
concerning the right of infants to membership, would 
have taken place, if it was to be set aside; for we have 
already shewn, that it was not set aside during the 
ministry of Jesus, and here also would have been the 
place in which Luke would have noticed it. The fact, 
therefore, that he makes no mention thereof, is a very 
strong presumptive proof that no controversy ever arose ; 
for, he says in the preface to his gospel chap. 1 : v. 3, 
that he had u perfect understanding of all things from 
the very first/' and if his object then in writing was to 
make known to Theophilus, (to whom he dedicated his 
Gospel and Acts of the Apostles,) the "eertainty" of the 
things in which Theophilus had been instructed, Luke 
1 : 4, he could not, consistently with his character as a 
faithful historian, much less as an inspired penman, 
have omitted a subject of so much importance. 

Infant membership, being of divine institution, could 
only be set aside by the apostles, who were under plenary 
inspiration, and by the elders of the Churches, in a 
general council. That it was not set aside by them on 
this occasion, and that infant membership was still 
regarded as existing, appears from the passage itself; for, 

1. The question was not, Who should be taken into 
the Church as members? but only, Is circumcision 
necessary to salvation ? This was decided in the negative. 
But this decision could not affect the right to member- 



124 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 



ship ; for circumcision was urged on the Gentiles, who 
had already been admitted and acknowledged as members. 
It appears, 

2. That the believing Jews regarded the right to 
membership in the Christian Church, the same as it was 
or had been in the Jewish. This we gather from the fact, 
that they urge the circumcision of the Gentiles as being 
necessary, which could only be done on the ground, that 
both Churches are the same in essence ; and that mem- 
bership is the same in the Christian as it was in the 
Jewish; and in the latter, we know that infants were 
admitted by the same initiatory rite as the adults, and 
that Gentiles with their children were admitted by cir- 
cumcision. Now, as the converted Jews regarded 
membership in the Christian Church the same as in the 
Jewish, by urging the necessity of circumcision, and as 
Luke no where makes mention of any controversy or 
dissension, concerning the right of infants to membership, 
in the Acts of the Apostles, in which he mentions the 
dissension about circumcision, and also about things of 
minor importance, as the contention between Paul and 
Barnabas, concerning the choice of travelling companions, 
Acts 15 : 39, it is an argument of considerable weight 
to prove, not only that the right of infants to member- 
ship was continued in the Christian Church; but also 
that it was never questioned, and the conclusion is, that 
as their right, which was of divine institution, was never 
questioned, they must, therefore, always have been 
admitted, and as they could only be admitted by baptism, 
therefore they were baptized. 

5. A fifth argument is, that if infants were not ad- 
mitted into the Church by baptism, in the days of the 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 125 

apostles, Luke would have mentioned their exclusion 
from it, in such places where he speaks of a deviation 
from the Mosaic law, as for instance, the admission of 
women into the Church by baptism, Acts 5 : 14, and the 
baptism of whole " households" of those that believed, 
Acts 10 : 2, 48 j Acts 16 : 15, 33. 

In the first of these passages, there is a deviation from 
the Jewish customs mentioned ) for women were not 
admitted into the Jewish Church by the same initiatory 
rite by which the men were admitted. Here they, as 
well as the men, are said to be " added to the Lord," 
which means admitted into his Church, and admitted too 
in the same manner as the men. As this deviation is 
mentioned, and no mention made of infants being ex- 
cluded, who, we know, had a right to membership, and 
who were admitted in the same manner as adults, we 
infer, that the right of infants to membership remained 
the same as before, and that they also were admitted. 
If, however, it be objected, that, because there is no 
mention made of their being added or admitted, it is a 
proof they were not admitted, then we answer, that Luke 
here speaks of those only who believed, and as infants 
are incapable of believing, the passage has no reference 
at all to them, and, consequently, cannot be brought as 
an objection to prove that infants were not baptized; 
and the probability would still be, that infants of believ- 
ing parents were admitted according to the custom of the 
Jews, which custom had not yet been set aside ; for it 
must be recollected, that it was not till a considerable 
time afterward that the dissension concerning circunw 
cjsion arose, Acts 15, 



126 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

This probability is greatly strengthened and increased 
by the fact, that even after it was decided in solemn 
council, that it was not necessary to circumcise the 
Gentiles, Luke, and Paul likewise, speak of the baptism 
of whole " households/' It is certainly very foolish and 
absurd to contend, that the phrases, "all his house " 
Acts 10: 2; "her household," Acts 16: 15; and 
" household of Stephanas," 1 Cor. 1 : 16, mean nothing 
but adult posterity ; for it would be a manifest perversion 
of language in any writer to make use of a word, which 
in its proper and general acceptation, includes infants, 
as well as adults, and confine it entirely to adults, without 
notifying the reader of such a restriction or limitation. 
It would be a usage which would not be expected from 
a faithful historian, and can much less be expected from 
an inspired writer; for it would certainly convey to the 
minds of his readers, that if there were infants in the 
household, they were also baptized, or at least, that they 
might be baptized, inasmuch as they are included in the 
phrases, "all his house," "household," "he and all 
his ;" and then, if infant baptism be such " a criminal 
thing," such " a trifling with the ordinances of God," 
as the Baptists would make us believe, it was certainly 
a most sacred duty of the inspired penman, to avoid the 
use of a word whose very tendency was to lead his 
readers into such a "gross," such a "pernicious," 
"fatal," and "ridiculous error," 

Admitting, however, that Luke, by the phrases, " all 
his house," "her household," "he and all his," and 
Paul, by the term, "household of Stephanas," mean 
adult posterity, then, as they failed of notifying their 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 127 

readers of such restriction of the meaning of the terms, 
the natural conclusion is, that their readers would in- 
fallibly understand them wrong, because the phrases 
would have a meaning affixed to them which is entirely 
contrary to established usage ; and because it is certain, 
that men, when acting freely, will understand words in 
that way which is most familiar to them, Luke must 
undoubtedly have been aware, that by using the phrases 
" all his house," "household," "he and all his;" and 
Paul a}so, that by using the term, " household," their 
readers would conclude that infants were also baptized 
with their parents, as the terms include them ; or if not, 
at least that they might be baptized, even as they were 
circumcised with their parents, and admitted into the 
Jewish Church, and this certainly called for some ex- 
planatory remark shewing the contrary, that the words 
are restricted in their meaning, and confined to adults ; 
as it was a sacred duty of both the apostle and the evan- 
gelist to guard their readers against error. The fact, 
that no such explanatory remark is found, is an argu- 
ment to shew that infants are included in the phrases, 
and that both Luke and Paul wish to be thus understood. 
That infants are actually included, can be shewn, at 
least, from one of the phrases themselves. It is said in 
Acts 16 : 14, that " a certain woman named Lydia, a 
seller of purple of the city of Thyatira who worshipped 
God, heard us ; whose heart the ]^ord opened, that she 
attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." 
In this verse, it is said, that the Lord opened her heart ? 
that she u attended to the things spoken of Paul •" but 
in the next it is said " she was baptized and her house*- 
Jiold," and this shews that there were those in her 



128 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

" household/' who did not believe, although they were 
baptized. Now, if the word " household" means only 
adults, then these adults were baptized, not becau- 
believed, but because she believed. They most, then, 
have been baptized either in unbelief, or on account of 
her faith; for there is nothing said about the faith of 
the " household/' Now, according to scripture, adults 
shall not be baptized without faith; for of them faith is 
always required before baptism can be administere I 
Acts 8 : 37. Unbelieving adults, therefore, could not 
have constituted her "household" which was baptized. 
Nor could adults have been baptized, because Lydia 
believed and was baptized; for it is absurd to suppose, 
that one adult can be baptized, merely because another, 
who belongs to the same household, or rather who is the 
head thereof, believes and is baptized. This " house- 
hold," therefore, can neither mean adults who were 
baptized in unbelief, nor adults who were baptized be- 
cause of Lydia' s faith and baptism; for it must be 
recollected, that there is not so much as a single word 
said of the household's heart being "opened;" of their 
attending to " the things spoken of Paul ;" or of their 
faith; it is only said her heart was opened, she attended 
to the words of Paul, but that she was baptized, and her 
household, and the only just conclusion to which we can 
come is, that the term "household" means infants in the 
strict and proper sense of the word, who were baptized, 
because their mother was baptized and admitted into the 
Church, the same custom being observed as prevailed 
among the Jews, viz : that of admitting believing Gen- 
tiles, together with their children, into the Church by 
circumcision. 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 129 

This view is still strengthened by what she says unto 
Paul and those that were with him, after she and her 
household were baptized. She says, " If ye have judged 
me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house/ ' 
whereas, had there been all adults in the house, she 
would have acted as speaker in the name of the rest, and 
have said, " If ye have judged us to be faithful/' and 
the historian would have remarked, that "they con- 
strained us/' instead of " she constrained us." 2\o other 
meaning than the one we have given of the term " house- 
hold/' can be applied to it; for none but this will suit 
the connexion, and to contend that ( ' the words mean 
adults only/' is doing violence to the very words of the 
text, and is both idle and absurd. 

From all the foregoing arguments, founded on scripture 
testimony, in favor of infant baptism, we think it must 
be evident, to every intelligent and unprejudiced mind, 
that infants of believing parents have a right to baptism, 
and that they were baptized in the apostolic age. Should 
any one not be willing to concede these points, or still 
retain a doubt as to the certainty thereof being established 
by these arguments, it still remains certain that the 
existence of the doctrine of infant baptism in the Xew 
Testament, is much more probable than its non-existence. 

Some, perhaps, might say, " You interpret scripture 
passages in one way, and the Baptist in another, and it 
is therefore difficult to decide, who is in the right, as you 
both claim to be so." Admitting that it is "difficult to 
decide/' the only resource then left to us, is to appeal to 
history for a decision of the question, whether infants of 
believing parents must be baptized ? Laying, therefore, 



130 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

all arguments on both sides of the question, drawn from 
scripture, aside, let us see what history 

Before we produce any particular testimony drawn 
from ecclesiastical history, it will be proper to consider 
the degree of probability which the assertion, that infant 
baptism is of apostolic practice, derives from the nature 
of the case, that is, by inference from that part of the 
case which, in point of fact, is on all hands acknowledged. 

The practice of baptizing infants exists, and must, 
therefore, have had a beginning. If it was not the 
practice of the apostles and primitive Churches to baptize 
infants, when and where did the practice commence ? It 
must either be an institution of Christ and his apostles, 
or else an innovation. If it be an innovation, it must 
have been introduced at a date much later than the time 
of the apostles ; for it is impossible from the very nature 
of the case, to suppose that an innovation, not upon the 
circumstances, but upon the essential principle of a 
sacrament, could find its way into the Church, at a period 
of time when many who had seen, heard, and conversed 
with the apostles were still living ; for these would be 
so many witnesses to prove it to be an innovation, and 
to prevent its introduction, or at least raise their voices 
against it, which opposition would be handed down to 
succeeding generations. Nor can it reasonably be sup- 
posed or expected, that it would be introduced during 
the lifetime of such as had been acquainted with those 
who had known and conversed with the apostles ; for it 
would be too great an innovation, for them not to see, 
that it was something which they had never seen, and 
which they had never heard of from their fathers, and 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 131 

consequently they would oppose it. It could only be 
successfully introduced at a time considerably later than 
that of the apostles, and of those that immediately fol- 
lowed them, yet even then it could not be introduced 
without producing a struggle, or being noticed by a 
provincial or general council, or without exciting a con- 
troversy, unless men were more sadly degenerated from 
primitive doctrine and customs in that age, than they 
have ever been since, which is in the highest degree 
improbable. 

It is true, there is one, and but one ancient writer, 
who opposes the baptism of infants, viz : Tertullian, who 
lived about the year two hundred. But this very oppo- 
sition proves the practice to have been more ancient than 
himself, and of course much nearer to the time when it was 
least probable to have been introduced, and least likely 
to have succeeded, had it been attempted. And although 
he does oppose it, yet he does not do so on the principle 
of its being an innovation, but on quite a different one ; 
for he gravely assigns as a reason why infants should not 
be baptized, that Christ says, " suffer little children to 
come unto me," therefore, they must stay till they are 
able to come, that is, till they are grown up, and he 
11 would prohibit the unmarried and all in a widowed 
state from baptism, because of the temptations to which 
they may be liable/' The whole of this is solved by 
adverting to that notion of the efficacy of this sacrament 
in taking away all previous sins, which then began to 
prevail, so that an inducement was held out for delaying 
baptism as long as possible, till at length, in many cases, 
it was postponed to the article of death, under the belief, 
that the dying who received this sacrament were the 



132 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

more secure of salvation. Tertullian accordingly, with 
all his zeal, allowed that " infants might be baptized if 
their lives be in danger" — and "amid all his arguments 
against the practice, never once asserts that it is an inno- 
vation/' which, " as he lived so early, he easily might 
have done, had he had any ground for it."* Now, the 
fact that Tertullian opposes infant baptism, is a proof 
that the practice was more ancient than himself, and his 
own words shew very plainly, that, although he did 
oppose it, he still did not regard it as an innovation ; 
consequently its existence must be ascribed to apostolic 
injunction. 

But we need not lay so much stress on the conclusion 
drawn from Tertullian' s opposition to infant baptism, as 
we have direct testimony in the writings of the Christian 
Fathers, in favor of infant baptism being practised by 
the apostles, and by them enjoined on the Churches. f 

1. u Justin Martyr, who was converted to Christianity 
A. D. 132 and suffered martyrdom, A. D. 167, in his 
( Apology' for the Christians, addressed to the emperor 
Antoninus Pius, says, ' several persons among us, sixty 
or seventy years old, and of both sexes, who were dis- 
cipled (ematheteiithesan) to Christ in their childhood do 
remain uncorrupted.' It is worthy of remark, that this 
father uses the same word, were discipled, or made disci- 
pies (emathcteuthesan) which Matthew used in expressing 
our Saviour's commission (matheteusate.') make disciples 
of all nations. But there was never any mode of making 

* Watson's Tbeo. Inst, page 440. 

-j- For these quotations from the Fathers, the author is in- 
debted to " An Essay on the subjects and mode of Baptism, by 
C. Elliott, A. M. 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 



133 



disciples but by baptism, and this was done, says Justin, 
from their childhood. And as he wrote this within 
forty years of the death of the apostles, or about A. D. 
150, and as seventy years may be reckoned back from 
that time, it will lead us to the middle of the apostolic 
age." Justin is, therefore, a witness, who proves, 

1. That both sexes were discipled to Christ, and if so, 
it must have been by baptism, as there was no other 
mode. 

2. That they were discipled to Christ in their child- 
hood — consequently were baptized. 

3. That their discipling to Christ took place in the 
middle of the apostolic age — consequently, at the very 
time when it could not have been practised, unless it had 
apostolic sanction. 

2. Ireneus, bishop of Lyons, in France, who lived in 
the close of the last quarter of the second century, and 
who, in his youth, had been a disciple of Poly carp, who 
was one of the apostle John's disciples, " says, (Adv. 
Haeres, Lib. 2, cap. 3,) Christ came to save all peisons 
who are regenerated unto God; infants, little ones, 
youths, and elderly persons. That by the word renascor, 
to regenerate, he means baptism, is plain from his use 
of the word in another place, where he says, " When 
Christ gave his apostles the command of regenerating 
unto G-od, he said, 'Gro teach all nations, baptizing them ,' " 

This declaration of Ireneus shews, 

1. That he intended to express baptism by the word 
regeneration. 

2. That in his day "infants," and "little ones," 
were regenerated, i. e., baptized. 

3. That that regeneration, or baptism, was adminis- 



134 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

tered pursuant to the command of Christ to his disciples. 
"Go and teach all nations, baptizing them." 

3. Orirjen, of Alexandria, who flourished about the 
year 230, says, "Infants, by the usage of the Church, 
are baptized/' — and " the Church had an order or tra- 
dition from the apostles to give baptism to infants/' 
(Rom. 8, in sec. 12, Com. in Epis. ad. Rom. Lib. 5.") 
These extracts shew ; 

1. That infant baptism was practised in his da} r . 

2. That it was the usage or custom of the Church to 
baptize infants. 

3. That the Church had an order or tradition from the 
apostles to do it* 

4. The council of Carthage, held A. D. 253, or 254, 
at which sixty-six bishops from different parts of the 
Church were present, and at which Cyprian, bishop of 
Carthage, presided, declare as follows, concerning infants, 
"that it was necessary to baptize them immediately 
after their birth, and that there lay no obligation upon 
Christians to tarry till the eighth day/' (Epis. ad Fidum, 
Epis. 59.) The question before the council was not, 
Shall infants be baptized ? for no one ever doubted this \ 
but, Shall they be baptized before they are eight days 
old? and the answer of the council was, that they should 
be baptized as soon as convenient, or practicable. This 
proves, 

1. That the custom of baptizing infants existed. 

2. That the Synod of sixty-six bishops from different 
parts of the Church, did not regard it as an innovation. 

3. That they regarded it as taking the place of cir- 
cumcision; for on this was the question raised, viz: 
whether it be necessary to defer baptism to the eighth 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 135 

day after birth — that being the day on which circum- 
cision was to be performed according to the law of Moses, 
6. Ambrose, who died in 375, when commenting on 
Luke 1:17, says, " But perhaps this may seem to be 
fulfilled in our time, and in the apostles' time. For that 
returning of the river waters backwards towards the 
spring head, which was caused by Elias, when the river 
was divided, (as the scripture says, Jordan was driven 
bach,) signified the sacrament of the laver of salvation 
which was afterwards to be instituted, by which those 
infants that are baptized are reformed back again from 
wickedness, or a corrupt state^ to the primitive state of 
their nature/' Speaking of the Pelagian heresy, he 
uses the following remarkable expression, — a the aban- 
donment of the baptism of children, — to denote the 
result of Pelagius' opinions, when pushed to their conse- 
quences/' From these remarks of his we deduce the 
following particulars : 

1. That infant baptism existed in the time of 
Ambrose. 

2. That he regarded it as having been practised in the 
apostles' time. 

3. That the practice of baptizing infants prevailed so 
universally, and was so universally acknowledged, as to 
be employed as an argument against the opinions of 
Pelagius to prove them untrue, by shewing that the 
consequences deduced from them, would lead to the 
abandonment of the baptism of children. 

6. Gregory Nazienzene, who died A. D. 380, declares 
in his discourse on baptism, " That infants are to be 
baptized to consecrate them to Jesus Christ, from their 



136 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMI 

infancy. " He also affirms in a following diseour 
u That infants must be baptized, though there be no 
danger of their death." This proves, 

1. That the practice existed. 

2. That he regarded it as the duty of parents to have 
their children baptized. 

3. That their baptism should take place, though there 
be no danger of their death. 

7. The fifth council of Carthage, held A. D. 401, 
decrees in her 72d canon, " That children ought to be 
baptized when there is no proof, nor testimony that they 
have been already baptized. This pre 

1. That the custom existed. 

2. That the council regarded it as obligatory to have 
children baptized, inasmuch as they urge the baptism of 
those, of whom it could not be shewn, that : 

had been baptized. 

8. Chrysostom, who died in 407. says, in his Horn, 
de Bapt. Christi, " Persons may be baptized either in 
their infancy, in middle age, or in old age."' 

9. Pelagius, who died in 420, says, in his letter to 
Innocent, bishop of Rome, " We hold one baptism, which 
we say ought to be administered with the same sacra- 
mental words to infants, as it is to the elder pers'ii 
We have also the following from him : " Men slander 
me, as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, 
or did promise the kingdom of heaven to some persona 
without the redemption of Christ, which is a thing that 
I never heard not even any wicked heretic say.*' ] 
proves, 

1. That the sacrament of baptism was given to infants. 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 137 

2. That Pelagius had been accused of denying infant 
baptism. 

3. That he regarded the accusation as a slanderous one. 
10. Augustine, who died A. D. 430, declares, " Infant 

baptism the whole Church practices : it was not insti- 
tuted by councils, but urns ever in use. The whole 
Church of Christ has constantly held that infants were 
d, for the forgiveness of sins. Let no one so much 
as whisper any other doctrine in your ears; this the 
Church has always had. has always held. I have never 
read, or heard of any Christian, whether Catholic or 
sectary, who held otherwise." This proves, 

1. That the practice of baptizing infants existed. 

2. That infant baptism was practised by the whole 
Church. 

3. That it did not owe its origin to any council, but 
had ever been in use. 

■A. That it was. and had been, so universally main- 
tained by Christians, both Catholics and sectaries, that 
he had never heard, nor read, of any, who did not hold 
that infants icere baptized for the remission of sins. 

In the foregoing testimonies of the Christian Fathers, 
relative to the baptism of infants, it will be observed, that 
there is a difference between the language of those who 
preceded, and those who followed after Tertullian. For, 
whilst the former, do not expressly affirm it to be of 
apostolical origin, but speak of it as an acknowledged 
fact; the latter commencing with Origen. strenuously 
insist that "infants, by the usage of the Church, are 
baptized," — that '-the Church had an order, or tra- 
dition from the apostles to give^ baptism to infants"- — 

10 



138 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

that "infants are to be baptised to consecrate them to 
Jesus Christ from their infancy/'— "that infants must 
be baptised, though there be no danger of their death/' 
"that the whole Church practices infant baptism/' ft*. 
This language has given rise to the opinion, that the 
custom of baptizing infants was universally introduced 
into the Church, only in consequence of the positive 
declarations of those later Fathers, that infant baptism 
was of apostolic origin. Hence, the question is asked. 
« Why did not the Fathers, who lived before Tertullian's 
time, positively assert, as the later Fathers did, that the 
custom of baptizing infants was derived from the 
apostles ? " 

To this we reply, that there was no occasion for them 
to do so. The right jpf infants of believing parents to 
baptism, was so universally admitted, and their baptism, 
was so universally practised in the Church, that no one 
denied, or called into question its validity. A defence, 
therefore, was not called for. It was only when Tertul- 
lian adopted and propagated the superstitious notion, that 
baptism was accompanied with the remission of all past 
sins, and that sins committed after baptism were pe- 
culiarly dangerous, and were next to, if not utterly, 
unpardonable; that a defence of infant baptism became 
necessary. Accordingly we find that Origen, who 
flourished A. D. 230, expressly declares, that "infants, 
by the usage of the Church are baptized,— and that the 
Church had an order or tradition from the apostles, to 
baptize infants." It was not to introduce into the Church, 
the custom of baptizing infants, that Origen, and those 
who succeeded him, declared that the Church had an 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 139 

order or tradition from the apostles to give baptism to 
infants — that infants must be baptised, though there be 
no danger of their death — that the whole Church prac- 
tises infant baptism — and that infant baptism was not 
instituted by councils, but was ever in use;" — but it was 
for the purpose of counteracting the pernicious influence 
of the notion held by Tertullian, and for upholding the 
ancient usage of the Church. For, the adoption of such 
a notion as that held by Tertullian, would necessarily 
lead to a delay of baptism, not only in the case of infants, 
but in that of adults also. This testimony of the Fathers 
derives additional weight from the fact, that Tertullian 
himself does not reject infant baptism, (for he says 
" infants ought to be baptized if their lives be in danger,) 
but only advises a delay, for the reasons above stated, 
and this delay or postponement of baptism he advises, 
also, to the unmarried, and all those who are in a 
widowed state, because of the temptations to which they 
may be liable." 

That baptism was delayed or postponed until the 
article of death, we have an instance in the case of Con- 
stantine, the Greek emperor, who, although a professing 
Christian for many years, yet "it is certain," says 
Mosheim, "that from his conversion to the last period of 
his life, he continued in the state of a catechumen, and 
was not received by baptism into the number of the 
faithful, until a few days before his death, when that 
sacred rite was administered to him at Nicomedia by 
Eusebius, bishop of that place." — " It was the custom 
with many in this century, (the fourth,) to put off their 
baptism to the last hour, that thus, immediately after 



140 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

receiving by this rite the remission of their sins, they 
might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life 
and immortality/' — Ecd. IIist.,\o\. 1, page 99,100. 

We have now given the testimony of the fathers from 
Justin Martyr, who was acquainted with persons who had 
had been discipled to Christ, or baptized in their child- 
hood, (which would be in the middle of the apostolic 
age,) down to the year 430, and testimony can also be 
produced clown to the tenth century, that infants were 
baptized, and that infant baptism was not entirely re- 
jected, nor its validity questioned by any society, during 
all that time. The testimony of the fathers on the subject 
of the origin of infant baptism, when given at all, is, 
that infants were baptized in the apostles' days, and that 
the Church ever after practised infant baptism. History 
proves this point with as much certainty, we think, as it 
proves the authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels. 
For, if it be a proof, (and it certainly is,) that the gospels 
were written by those men whose names they bear; 
because the books were extant in the age joining the 
apostolic; because they were received in that age as 
being the production of those men ; and because they 
were never contradicted or doubted being their produc- 
tion during succeeding ages, except by a few heretics : 
— then, as there is evidence that infant baptism was 
practised in the age joining the apostolic; as there is 
evidence that it was received as coming from the apostles ; 
and as there is evidence that it was never contradicted, 
nor doubted to be of apostolic institution by any society 
during succeeding ages, until the twelfth century ; we 
are bound by the same principle to receive these evi- 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 141 

dences as a proof that infant baptism was practised by 
the apostles themselves. History is as direct and positive 
in its assertions with respect to this point, as it is with 
respect to the former. For, when Tertullian advised the 
delay of infant baptism, Origen, who succeeded him, who 
was born of Christian parents, and who was a man of 
extensive learning and acquaintance with the customs of 
the Church, declares, that " the Church had an order or 
tradition from the apostles to give baptism to infants." 
It is, therefore, certain, if history can be depended upon, 
and if the testimony of those who lived near the apos- 
tolic age, and of those who succeeded them, be entitled 
to any credit, — and they must be until the contrary be 
shewn,— that infant baptism was practised by the apostles, 
and by them enjoined upon the Churches; for these, it 
is said, derived it from them. And to whatever, there- 
fore, the Baptist appeals for the truth of his doctrine, 
that infants of believing parents must not be baptized, 
whether to scripture or history,the evidence is against him. 

We now turn to history to shew when infant baptism 
was first opposed. 

The first on record who speaks against the baptism of 
infants, is Tertullian, who lived about the year 200. 
His opposition has already been considered, and it was 
there shewn, that he did not reject infant baptism en- 
tirely, but only urged a postponement; and that his 
opposition did not arise from his viewing it as an innova- 
tion, or as contrary to apostolic practice, but because he 
considered baptism as efficacious in taking away all pre- 
vious sins, — a doctrine which, at that time, began to 
prevail. He still allowed, that u infants ought to be 
baptized, if their lives be in danger." He cannot, there- 



142 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

fore, be brought forward as a witness to prove, that infant 
baptism was rejected in his day; for he does not himself 
reject it, but only pleads for a postponement, on the 
ground, that sins committed after baptism were peculiarly 
dangerous, for which reason, "he would also prohibit 
the unmarried, and all in a widowed state, from baptism, 
because of the temptations to which they may be liable." 

The first notice we have of the rejection of infant 
baptism is found in the beginning of the twelfth century 
when it was rejected by the Petrobrussians, a sect that 
was founded in France about the year 1110, by Peter 
de Bruys. Their rejection of it, was, however, not based 
on the ground of its being an innovation, or a mere 
human invention, but was the necessary and unavoidable 
consequence resulting from one of their peculiar tenets. 
They held and maintained, "that no persons were to be 
baptized before they had the full use of their reason." 
And the conclusion to be drawn from this would neces- 
sarily be, that as infants have not the full use of their 
reason, therefore, infants must not be baptized, — and the 
baptism of infants, would, then, as a matter of course, 
without further inquiry on the subject, be at once 
rejected, and accordingly it was. 

Just such a course do the modern opposers of infant, 
baptism pursue. They lay down as a principle, that 
"faith precedes baptism/' and then conclude, that "as 
infants cannot believe, therefore, infants must not be 
baptized," and accordingly reject the baptism of infants, 
without ever inquiring into the nature of the case, or 
into history in order to see whether their "logical con- 
clusion" accords with the legitimate customs and usages 
of the primitive Churches, or whether it does not ; and 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 143 

without once reflecting that the same process of reasoning 
will as certainly exclude infants from salvation as it 
excludes them from baptism. For, Christ says, "he 
that believeth not shall be damned," Mark 16 : 16. The 
Baptist saj^s, " infants cannot believe" — and the conclu- 
sion then, would be, therefore, infants shall be damned ! ! 
The next who rejected infant baptism were the Ana- 
baptists of Germany, who took their rise in the beginning 
of the sixteenth century. They received their name on 
account of their re-baptizing such as had received the 
rite'of baptism in a state of childhood in other Churches. 
But on what particular ground they rejected the baptism 
of infants, and re-baptized those who had been baptized 
in their childhood, we cannot tell. The following extract, 
however, from MosheimJs Ecclesiastical History, vol. 2, 
page 129, will perhaps give some idea of the credit due 
to those " witnesses" against infant baptism. In speak- 
ing of the Anabaptists in Germany, he says, "They 
were, from their very origin, subdivided into various 
sects, which differed from each other in points of no small 
moment. The most pernicious faction of all those that 
composed this motley multitude, was the sect which pre- 
tended that the founders of the new and perfect Church, 
already mentioned, were under the direction of a divine 
impulse, and were armed against all opposition by the 
power of working miracles. It was this detestable faction 
that, in 1521, began their fanatical work under the 
guidance of Munzer, Stuebner, Storck, and other leaders 
of the same furious complexion and excited the most 
unhappy tumults, and commotions in Saxony and adja- 
cent countries." And in 1525, " Munzer and his asso- 
ciates assembled a numerous army, chiefly composed of 



144 MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 

the peasants of Suabia, Thuringia, Franconia, and 
Saxony, and, at the head of this credulous and deluded 
rabble, declared war against all laws, governments and 
magistrates of every kind, under the chimerical pretext, 
that Christ was now to take the reins of civil and eccle- 
siastical government into his own hands, and to rule alone 
over the nations. But this .seditious crowd was routed 
and dispersed, without much difficulty, by the elector of 
Saxony, and other princes; Munzer was ignominiously 
put to death, and his factious counsellors were scattered 
abroad in different places." And in speaking of those 
who followed after the former, jlosheini says, " A great 
part of this rabble seemed really delirious; and nothing 
more extravagant or more incredible can be imagined 
than the dreams and visions that were constantly arising 
in their disordered brains. Such of them as had s^me 
sparks of reason left, and had reflection enough to reduce 
their notions into a certain form, maintained among 
others, the following points of doctrine : ' That the Church 
of Christ ought to be exempt from all sin ; that all 
things ought to be in common among the faithful ; that 
all usury, tithes, and tribute, ought to be entirely abol- 
ished; that the baptism of infants icas the invention of 
the devil; that every Christian was invested with the 
power of preaching the gospel; and consequently, that 
the Church stood in no need of ministers or pastors ; that 
in the kingdom of Christ civil magistrates were absolutely 
useless; and that God still continued to reveal his will 
to chosen persons by dreams and visions." 

Thus we see, on the one hand, that the practice of 
infant baptism can be traced back to the age joining the 
apostolic, and, on the other hand, that the rejection of 



MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS. 145 

it can be traced back only to the beginning of the twelfth 
century; (for Tertullian only advises a delay, but does 
not reject it) and in no instance does it appear to have 
been opposed or rejected on the ground of its being 
contrary to apostolic usage, — which would be a very 
strong argument against the practice. Opposition to, or 
rejection of it, was a necessary consequence resulting 
from some principle or position held and maintained 
% those who did oppose or reject it. Thus tertullian 
held that baptism took away all previous sins, and that 
sins committed after baptism were peculiarly dangerous, 
and next to, if not utterly, unpardonable. And the 
natural conclusion from such a premise would be, that 
it be best to delay baptism until near death, in order to 
have the full benefit of it. And Tertullian accordingly 
advises the delay of baptism, not only in the case of 
infants, but also in the case of adults; for, "he would 
prohibit the unmarried, and all in a widowed state from 
baptism, because of the temptations to which they may 
be liable." The Petrobrussians laid down as one of 
their principal tenets, that "no persons were to be bap- 
tized, who had not the full use of their reason." The 
natural conclusion from this premise would be, that, as 
infants have not the full use of their reason, therefore, 
infants must not be baptized, — and accordingly they 
rejected the baptism of infants on that ground. The 
Anabaptists of Germany, at least some, if not all of them, 
maintained that " the baptism of infants was the invention 
of the devil," and the natural conclusion from such a 
premise, would be, that infants should not be baptized, 
and accordingly, it was rejected by them. 

We have now brought our investigation to a close, and 
shall conclude with a few observations, 



146 CONCLUSION. 

1. The testimony of the fathers, which is so direct and 
positive on the subject of infant baptism, would be suf- 
ficient to induce us to adopt it, were there not even an 
intimation given in the New Testament from which it 
might be inferred. But when, on inquiring into the 
case, we learn from Scripture, that the Christian Church 
is the same in essence as the Jewish ; that membership 
belongs to the essence of the Church ; that the covenant 
is the same in the Christian Church as it was in the 
Jewish ; that membership is the same ; that persons are 
to be admitted by baptism ; that the pre-requisites of 
baptism do not exclude infants : we cannot but admit 
that the right of infants of believing parents to baptism, 
is, at least, raised to a very high degree of probability. 

2. When we further discover that Christ no where 
forbids infant baptism, but on the contrary recognizes 
infants as belonging to the "kingdom of God;" that 
Paul calls infants of believers " holy ; ,J that Luke never 
mentions their exclusion from the Church where he ex- 
pressly speaks of the deviations from the law of Moses, 
that he speaks of the baptism of a " household," and 
that no controversy ever arose concerning the admission 
or exclusion of infants from the Church — though we 
find that Peter was withstood by the converted Jews, 
only because he had eaten with the Gentiles ; and that 
the admission of Cornelius into the Church caused great 
dissension ; — we cannot but conclude, that infant mem- 
bership was still the same as before, and that the ancient 
Christians must have believed, that their children enjoyed 
all the rights and privileges, under the gospel, as the 
children of the Jews had enjoyed under the Mosaic 
dispensation — and this at once solves the question, Why 



CONCLUSION. 147 

there is no positive command, that infants should be 
admitted — namely, because it was not necessary, as no 
change had taken, or was to take place, concerning the 
right of infants of believing parents to membership, and 
as their right is of divine institution, they must be ad- 
mitted, and as they can be admitted only by baptism, 
they must, therefore, be baptized. 

3. When, in addition to all this, we find the testimony 
of the fathers, from near the days of the apostles, down 
to the beginning of the twelfth century so direct, so 
positive, so uncontradicted, that infants were baptized — 
that the Church learned from the apostles to baptize 
infants; and find, too, that for the space of eleven 
hundred years no society of men ever pretended to say 
that it was unlawful to baptize infants, and that those 
who did oppose or reject infant baptism, did so, as a 
necessary consequence resulting from some erroneous 
principle, or superstitious notion held and maintained by 
them; we cannot but conclude, that the rejection of it 
arises from any cause whatever, save that of the want of 
sufficient evidence in its favor. For if history can be 
depended upon; if a regular and uniform testimony 
ascribing to a certain person or persons, the advancement 
of a doctrine, or the introduction of a custom from its 
commencement through a period of eleven hundred years, 
be a proof that such a doctrine was advanced, or such a 
custom was introduced by him or them, then infant 
baptism was practised by the apostles ; for such a regular 
and uninterrupted testimony it has, from the time when 
the mere delay of baptism to infants was advocated by 
Tertullian. The rejection of it being of quite a modern 
date, cannot affect in the least, the certainty of the 



143 CONCLUSION. 

practice by the apostles, any more than the rejection of 
the Bible by modern infidels affects the genuineness of 
the sacred books. 

The conclusion, then, to which we come, in view of 
all the preceding evidence, is, that infants of believing 
parents have a right to baptism, and therefore must be 
baptized. 



148 CONCLUSION. 

practice by the apostles, any more than the rejection of 
the Bible by modern infidels affects the genuineness of 
the sacred books. 

The conclusion, then, to which we come, in view of 
all the preceding evidence, is, that infants of believing 
parents have a right to baptism, and therefore must be 
baptized. 



ERRATA 



The reader is requested to correct the following errata 
it is due, however, to the compositor to say, that the 
mate were in the copy, ezcept those on pages 60, 112 

Page 24, line 8 from above, for 0*." 4 , 4, read Gen. 4: 3, 4. 
" 86 « 2 ' £ en - S:4 > "Gen.4.:3 4. 

" 47 « | « «-«SL 1 } s *-«AaL M! 27 - 

- » :: 1? :: :: : ^ 4«&« 

;; ^ ;; 2 fro m below, for\^Xi ^^ 
:; i20 ; ^6fr r be.ow,for*, r „ ad „ f . 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson ParK Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



! 



